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

 )

1:05-cv-00890-AWI-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 5)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER

JUDGMENT

ORDER TERMINATING ACTION

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On August 16, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendation that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED. These Findings and Recommendation were served on all

parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed

within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that order. On

September 16, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendation.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendation are supported by the record and proper

Case 1:05-cv-00890-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 11/10/05 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

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 

As explained by the Magistrate Judge, 28 U.S.C. § 2255

provides the exclusive procedural mechanism by which a federal

prisoner may test the legality of detention." Lorentsen v. Hood,

223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir.2000). Petitioner's objections do not

convince the court that this action falls within Section 22255's

"savings clause," which allows a prisoner to file a habeas corpus

petition pursuant to Section 2241 if his remedy under Section 2255

is "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his

detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This savings clause is a narrow

exception and does not apply merely because Section 2255's

gatekeeping provisions prevent the petitioner from filing a

petition. Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir.2003)

(citations omitted). Because Petitioner's objections focus on his

inability to file a Section 2255 petition, the court cannot find

Petitioner falls within Section 2255's savings clause. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed August 16, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED;

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to judgment; and,

4. This action is therefore TERMINATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00890-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 11/10/05 Page 2 of 2