Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00890/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00890-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerard Gallant
Petitioner
Paul Schultz
Respondent

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERARD GALLANT,

Petitioner,

v.

PAUL SCHULTZ,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-0890 AWI DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S “MOTION

FOR REDUCTION IN TERM OF

IMPRISONMENT AND RE-SENTENCE

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2),”

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[Doc. 17]

On July 11, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241. In the petition, Petitioner claimed that he was improperly shackled and forced to

wear a stun belt during his trial and that his attorney was ineffective for not objecting to this

procedure. Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California, Sacramento Division, for conspiring to effect a prisoner’s escape, aiding and abetting

the escape, and armed career criminal. 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 751, 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1); United

States v. Gallant, 136 F.3d 1246 (9 Cir. 1998). th

On August 16, 2005, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending

that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the claims were not cognizable via

section 2241, but rather must be raised in a section 2255 motion in the sentencing court. The

Recommendation was adopted in full on November 10, 2005, and judgement was entered this

same date. (Court Docs. 8, 9.) 

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on November 18, 2005. (Court Doc. 10.) On March 29,

Case 1:05-cv-00890-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 06/28/07 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

2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of

appealability. (Court Doc. 16.) 

On March 30, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion entitled “MOTION FOR REDUCTION IN

TERM OF IMPRISONMENT AND RE-SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).” 

(Court Doc. 17.) 

On April 24, 2007, Respondent filed an opposition to Petitioner’s motion. (Court Doc.

21.) Petitioner filed a reply on May 2, 2007. (Court Doc. 23.)

Without addressing the merits of Petitioner’s motion, because Petitioner was convicted in

the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District, his relief and remedy, if any, lies in that Court. 

Thus, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED without prejudice, to re-filing in the Sacramento Division

of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 27, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00890-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 06/28/07 Page 2 of 2