Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01016/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01016-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: Modification of Imprisonment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 06CV1016-J / 05CR1659-J

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GILBERTO GARCIA-NUNEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06CV1016-J

Crim No. 05CR1659-J

ORDER DENYING “PETITION TO

CON[S]IDER TITLE 18 PART: II

CHAPTER: 227 SUBCHAPTER: D § 3582"

On May 9, 2006, Petitioner Gilberto Garcia-Nunez, proceeding in pro per, filed a

“PETITION TO CON[S]IDER TITLE 18 PART: II CHAPTER: 227 SUBCHAPTER: D §

3582” (“Petition”). [See Civil No. 06cv1016.] Although Petitioner did not explicitly state that

he was filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the Court found

that it was likely that the Petitioner was doing so because the Petition was challenging the

imposition of the sentence of imprisonment and requesting a downward departure. (See Pet’r’s

Pet. at 1.) On May 16, 2006, pursuant to United States v. Seesing, 234 F.3d 456, 463-64 (9th Cir.

2000), the Court issued a Notice Informing Petitioner of Options Re: “Petition” (“Notice”). 

[Doc. No. 30.] The Court informed the Petitioner that he could: (1) consent in writing to the

Court construing the motion as a motion under § 2255 and ruling on the merits or (2) withdraw

the motion and file an all-inclusive motion under § 2255. (Id. at 3.) The Court also ordered

Case 3:06-cv-01016-J Document 1 Filed 10/17/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 06CV1016-J / 05CR1659-J

Petitioner to select an option listed no later than thirty (30) dates from the date the Notice was

filed or the Petition would be dismissed without prejudice. (Id. at 4.) As of the date of this

order, more than one year after the Notice was filed, the Petitioner has failed to file a responsive

pleading. Accordingly, the Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 17, 2007

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

cc: All Parties of Record

Case 3:06-cv-01016-J Document 1 Filed 10/17/07 Page 2 of 2