Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00890/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00890-0/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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition on July 11, 2005. Petitioner indicates that he is

currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary, in Atwater, California, following a

conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento

Division, for a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 751(a), 922(g)(1). Petitioner was sentenced to 365

months. 

Petitioner raises a due process challenge based on the fact that he was shackled and

forced to wear a stun belt during his jury trial and claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to object to such procedure. 

DISCUSSION

A federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or constitutionality of his

conviction or sentence must do so by way of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence

Case 1:05-cv-00890-AWI-DLB Document 5 Filed 08/16/05 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

27

28

2

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988); Thompson v.

Smith, 719 F.2d 938, 940 (8th Cir.1983); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3rd 1997);

Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.1981). In such cases, only the sentencing

court has jurisdiction. Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1163. A prisoner may not collaterally attack a

federal conviction or sentence by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241. Grady v. United States, 929 F.2d 468, 470 (9 th Cir.1991); Tripati, 843 F.2d at

1162; see also United States v. Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 842 (5th Cir.1980). 

In contrast, a federal prisoner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of that

sentence's execution must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998); United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d

175, 177 (5th Cir. 1994); Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30 n.5 (2nd Cir. 1991);

United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-94 (6th Cir. 1991); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476,

478-79 (3rd Cir. 1991); United States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185, 186-87 (8th Cir. 1987);

Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990). 

A federal prisoner authorized to seek relief under § 2255 may seek relief under § 2241 if

he can show that the remedy available under § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the

validity of his detention." Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-5 (9th Cir.2000); United

States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting § 2255). The Ninth Circuit has

recognized that it is a very narrow exception. Id; Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2003)

(a petitioner must show actual innocence and that he never had the opportunity to raise it by

motion to demonstrate that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective); Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054,

1055 (9th Cir.1999) (per curium) (holding that the AEDPA’s filing limitations on § 2255

Motions does not render § 2255 inadequate or ineffective); Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964)

(a court’s denial of a prior § 2255 motion is insufficient to render § 2255 inadequate.); Lorentsen

v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir. 2000) (same); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63 (9th Cir.1988)

(a petitioner's fears bias or unequal treatment do not render a § 2255 petition inadequate);

Williams v. Heritage, 250 F.2d 390 (9th Cir.1957); Hildebrandt v. Swope, 229 F.2d 582 (9th

Cir.1956); see, United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001) (procedural

Case 1:05-cv-00890-AWI-DLB Document 5 Filed 08/16/05 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

27

28

3

requirements of § 2255 may not be circumvented by invoking the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1651). The burden is on the petitioner to show that the remedy is inadequate or ineffective. 

Redfield v. United States, 315 F.2d 76, 83 (9th Cir. 1963). 

In this case, Petitioner’s claims must be raised in a § 2255 motion, which must be filed in

the sentencing court-the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California,

Sacramento Division. Petitioner contends that a § 2255 motion is time barred. Petitioner’s claim

is without merit and he cannot raise such an argument unless and until a § 2255 action is filed. 

Further, inability to bring a motion under § 2255 because of the statute of limitations, does not

render that remedy inadequate or ineffective. See UnitedStates v. Garcia, 210 F.3d 1058, 1060

(9th Cir. 2000) (applying statute of limitations to federal prisoners); Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d

1054, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999). 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the instant petition for

writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-

304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after

service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 15, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00890-AWI-DLB Document 5 Filed 08/16/05 Page 3 of 3