Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00020/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00020-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STACY CANDLER, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

J.E. SLADE, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-020 REC

(No. CR-F-95-5193 MDC) 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT,

DISMISSING PETITION FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION AND

DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER

JUDGMENT

On December 1, 2004, petitioner Stacy Candler filed a

“Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in Federal

Custody” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States

District Court for the Central District of California. The

matter was transferred to this court by Order filed on December

16, 2004, the Central District ruling that the petition is deemed

to be a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and further ruling:

By challenging the legality of her federal

sentence, not its execution, the Petition

Case 1:05-cv-00020-REC-LJO Document 10 Filed 12/12/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

should have been brought, and is construed

as, a successive Section 2255 motion. 

Petitioner appears to have brought the

Petition as a Section 2241 petition in order

to avoid having to obtain Circuit

authorization to file a second or successive

Section 2255 motion. Regardless, since venue

is properly located in the Eastern District

of California, the ultimate decision of

whether the Petition should be dismissed as

an unauthorized successive Section 2255

motion is properly reserved for the

sentencing judge.

After the action was transferred to this court, an entry was

made on January 1, 2005 on the docket in the civil case

designation: “Set Case Management deadline of 3/3/2005 for

respondent to respond to the petition”. This docket entry was

not made pursuant to any court order that respondent file a

response to the petition nor is there any indication that

respondent was served with the docket entry either electronically

or by mail.

On July 22, 2005, petitioner filed a motion for default

judgment, contending that she is entitled to immediate release

from incarceration because respondent had not filed a response to

her petition within the time set forth on the January 1, 2005

docket entry.

Petitioner’s motion for default judgment is denied. The

court had not yet reviewed the petition and had not ordered a

response to it from respondent. The docket entry was for

internal tracking purposes only. 

The court dismisses petitioner’s deemed Section 2255 motion. 

The record in this action establishes that petitioner filed a

Case 1:05-cv-00020-REC-LJO Document 10 Filed 12/12/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Section 2255 motion on April 27, 1998, which motion was denied by

Order filed on July 9, 1998. Therefore, petitioner cannot

proceed with the instant motion until he applies for leave to

file a second or successive Section 2255 motion with the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals and receives permission from the Ninth

Circuit to so proceed. Absent such permission, this court lacks

jurisdiction to consider the merits of the instant motion. 

United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 664 (9 Cir. 1998). th

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Petitioner’s motion for default judgment is denied.

2. Petitioner’s deemed motion to vacate, set aside or

correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is dismissed.

3. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00020-REC-LJO Document 10 Filed 12/12/05 Page 3 of 3