Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02311/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02311-0/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 

12cr286-MMA-1 

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,

v. 

ELISA TURNER (1), 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 12cr286-MMA-1 

Related Case No.: 17cv2311-MMA-1 

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

VACATE AND CORRECT 

SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 

[Doc. No. 436] 

 On January 24, 2012, Defendant Elisa Turner was charged in a single-count 

Indictment with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of Title 21, 

United States Code, section 841(a)(1) and 846. Defendant pleaded guilty as charged, and 

was sentenced to a 188-month term of imprisonment. See Doc. No. 353. Defendant now 

moves to vacate and correct her sentence pursuant to Title 28, section 2255, based upon 

the application of California Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, 

Cal. Penal Code § 1170.18, which enabled her to reclassify two California felony drug 

convictions to misdemeanors. See Doc. No. 436. For the reasons set forth below, the 

Court summarily DISMISSES Defendant’s motion. 

Case 3:17-cv-02311-MMA Document 2 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

12cr286-MMA-1 

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

DISCUSSION

Section 2255 provides that if a defendant’s motion, file, and records “conclusively 

show that the movant is entitled to no relief” the Court summarily may dismiss the 

motion without sending it to the United States Attorney for response. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2255(b). The rules regarding Section 2255 proceedings similarly state that the Court 

summarily may order dismissal of a 2255 motion without service upon the United States 

Attorney only “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any attached exhibits, 

and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief . . . .” 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. Thus, when a movant fails to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or when the motion is incredible or 

patently frivolous, the district court may summarily dismiss the motion. Cf. United States 

v. Burrows, 872 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1989); Marrow v. United States, 772 F.2d 525, 

526 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Defendant’s motion is time-barred under Section 2255(f) and therefore subject to 

summary dismissal.1

 See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1) (one-year limitations period for filing a 

2255 motion, which generally runs from the date on which the judgment of conviction 

became final). Defendant’s claim also fails on the merits under United States v. Diaz, 

838 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2016), “in which the Ninth Circuit held that Proposition 47 does 

not retroactively make a defendant’s felony conviction a misdemeanor for purposes of 

federal law.” United States v. Vazcones, No. 13cr3309-MMA, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

53937, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2017); see also United States v. Menchaca, 2017 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 16565, 2017 WL 475324, at *4-*5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017) (“Even if 

                                               

1

 The Court need not hold an evidentiary hearing if the issues can be conclusively decided on the basis of 

the record. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 76 (1977); see also United States v. Mejia-Mesa, 153 

F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that a “district court has discretion to deny an evidentiary hearing 

on a Section 2255 claim where the files and records conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to 

relief”). Here, a review of the record conclusively establishes that Defendant’s motion is untimely, and 

she is not otherwise “entitled to relief.” Therefore, an evidentiary hearing is neither warranted nor 

required. 

Case 3:17-cv-02311-MMA Document 2 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

12cr286-MMA-1 

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

defendant demonstrated that one of the predicate felony convictions underlying his career 

offender status was reduced to a misdemeanor under state law, the holding of Diaz, that 

reclassification pursuant to Proposition 47 does not apply retroactively for purposes of a 

federal sentencing enhancement, controls.”). 

CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the Court summarily DISMISSES Defendant’s motion. 

The Court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability because Defendant has not 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(2); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). The Clerk of Court is 

instructed to enter judgment accordingly in the related civil case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: November 29, 2017 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-02311-MMA Document 2 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3