Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02271/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02271-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cr1099 WQH

CASE NO. 17cv2271 WQH

 v. ORDER

COURTLAND M. GETTEL,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

This matters before the Court are the motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed

by Defendant (ECF No. 154, 156) and the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction

filed by Plaintiff United States (ECF No. 170). 

FACTS

On October 17, 2017 this Court sentenced Defendant to serve a sentence of 135

months in custody for wire fraud conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. (ECF

No. 167).1

On October 30, 2017, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 150). Defendant’s appeal remains

pending. 

On November 06, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 154). Defendant moves the Court to vacate his sentence

1 On January 12, 2018, the Court entered an Amended Judgment in a criminal case

adding restitution. (ECF No. 167). 

- 1 -

Case 3:17-cv-02271-WQH Document 3 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> 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

27

28

based a claim that he did not fully understand the consequences of his plea and a claim 

of conflict of interest of his defense counsel.

On November 14, 2017, Defendant filed a second motion to vacate his sentence 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 156). 

On February 20, 2018, the Plaintiff United States filed a response to the

Defendant’s motions and a motion to dismiss on the ground that a direct appeal is

pending and the Defendant cannot proceed in two court. 

RULING OF THE COURT

Generally, “[a] district court should not entertain a habeas corpus petition while

there is an appeal pending.” Feldman v. Henman, 815 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Only when the defendant proves the existence of “‘extraordinary circumstances’

[which] outweigh the considerations of administrative convenience and judicial

economy” should a district court consider a § 2255 motion during the pendency of a

direct appeal. United States v. Taylor, 648 F.2d 565, 572 (9th Cir. 1981) (court found

that the circumstances were extraordinary because the collateral attack alleged newly

discovered facts that “[cast] such a dark shadow on a pivotal aspect of the direct appeal

... [and] that the concerns for justice are best served by prompt inquiry either confirming

or dispelling the suspicion of irregularity raised”). A pending direct appeal “severely

restricts the filing of a collateral claim with the District Court, to avoid any anomaly

associated with the simultaneous consideration of the same case by two courts.” Id. In

some instances, the result of the direct appeal will render the collateral claim moot. See

id.

In this case, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal thirteen days after the sentencing

and a § 2255 motion a week later. Defendant seeks to proceed in two courts to

challenge the same judgment. The § 2255 motion challenges the legality of the same

sentence currently on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The

circumstances of this case are not extraordinary and this Court will not entertain

Defendant’s § 2255 motion during the pendency of his direct appeal.

- 2 -

Case 3:17-cv-02271-WQH Document 3 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> 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

27

28

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by

Defendant (ECF No. 154, 156) are denied without prejudice to re-file as provided in 28

U.S.C. § 2255(f). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction

filed by Plaintiff United States (ECF No. 170)is granted.

The Clerk of the Court shall provide this Order to the Defendant at 60857298

USP Victorville, P.O. Box 3900, Adelanto, CA 92301. 

DATED: May 3, 2018

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 -

Case 3:17-cv-02271-WQH Document 3 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3