United States of America V. Gaya

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 12/9/2014. Mailed notice (sxw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSE GAYA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12 C 9268
(Crim. No. 06 CR 896)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Jose Gaya ("Gaya") is a criminal defendant whose case originally came to this Court's
calendar after the departure from this District Court of its colleague Honorable Wayne Andersen.
Because Gaya had essayed an attack on his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
("Section 2255"), for administrative reasons this case was assigned the civil docket number
shown in the caption as well as retaining the criminal case number that it had carried before
Judge Andersen. When this Court rejected the Section 2255 action on grounds that are irrelevant
to the current situation, Gaya attempted an appeal, and this mandate emanated from our Court of
Appeals on February 7 of this year:
Jose Gaya has filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his motion
under 28 U.S.C. section 2255, which we construe as an application for a
certification of appealability. This court has reviewed the final order of the
district court and the record on appeal. We find no substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the request for a certificate of
appealability is DENIED. Gaya's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
DENIED.
Some nine months later Gaya filed two motions in connection with his effort (like the
efforts of many other prisoners serving federal time for drug offenses) to obtain relief from his

custodial sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in light of Amendment 782 to the Sentencing
Guidelines: Those efforts comprised Gaya's motion for the appointment of counsel (Dkt. 34) and
an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") (Dkt. 35). Later that month this
Court issued a brief November 25 memorandum order ("Order") that granted the first of those
requests, with the Federal Defender Program being appointed to represent Gaya -- an action that
implicitly also granted IFP relief, for such status was essentially inherent in this Court's
enlistment of the Federal Defender Program).
But regrettably the Order's caption listed only Gaya's criminal case number, so that this
Court then learned from a printout listing of all pending motions on its civil case calendar that
Dkt. Nos. 34 and 35 were still reflected as pending in Case No. 12 C 9268. To cure that
unintentional oversight, Dkt. 34 is granted (as had been intended in the Order) and it is also made
clear that Dkt. 35 is granted as well.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: December 9, 2014

-2-