Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08226/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08226-0/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

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

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Jerry James George, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-8226-PCT-MHM (MEA)

No. CR 05-0709-PCT-MHM

ORDER

Movant Jerry James George, who is confined in the Federal Medical Center-Butner

in Butner, North Carolina, has filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct

Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc.# 1.) Movant

has also filed a motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, for appointment of counsel,

to compel production of documents, and for an evidentiary hearing. (Doc.# 3, 5-7.) The

Court will require a response to the § 2255 Motion and will deny Movant’s other motions.

I. Procedural History

Movant was convicted by a jury of three counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor

and one count of abusive sexual contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(c),

2244(a)(1), and 2246(2)(C) and (3). On May 15, 2007, the Court sentenced Movant to a 236

month term of imprisonment followed by supervised release for life.

Movant alleges four grounds for relief. In Ground One, he alleges that he received

ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s refusal to allow Movant to testify

and to provide discovery to him and based on appellate counsel’s failure to raise various

issues. In Ground Two, Movant alleges violation of his Fourth Amendment right against

Case 3:09-cv-08226-NVW Document 9 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 4
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

 Movant may not pursue state malpractice or constitutional claims against his former

attorneys in connection with his § 2255 Motion. 

- 2 -

illegal search and seizure. In Ground Three, Movant alleges violation of his rights under

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 (1966). In Ground Four, Movant alleges

prosecutorial misconduct. A response will be required. 

II. Pending Motions

As noted above, Movant has filed a motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

for appointment of counsel, to compel production of documents, and for an evidentiary

hearing. (Doc.# 3, 5-7.) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied

because there is no filing fee for a § 2255 motion. (Doc.# 3.) 

A. Appointment of Counsel

Movant asks the Court to appoint counsel to represent him in connection with his

§ 2255 Motion. There is no constitutional right to counsel on federal collateral review. See

 Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). However, the Court retains the discretion

to appoint counsel to assist Movant if the interests of justice so require. See Terrovona v.

Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B)).

Movant seeks the appointment of counsel because he is indigent, he is not an attorney, and

he has limited access to a law library. Absent more, the Court does not find that the interests

of justice require appointment of counsel.

B. Motion to Compel

Movant has filed a motion to compel his trial and appellate counsel, Assistant Federal

Public Defender Karen M. Wilkinson, and Anders V. Rosenquist, Jr., respectively, to

produce a copy of their case files to Movant. (Doc.# 6.) Movant asserts that he has

repeatedly requested a “full copy” of his case file from these attorneys. Movant maintains

that he requires a copy of their case files to proceed with his § 2255 motion and to support

claims for malpractice and violation of his constitutional rights against them.1

 

The Court will deny Movant’s motion to compel. However, it will order Ms.

Wilkinson and Mr. Rosenquist to file affidavits addressing whether, when, and how they

Case 3:09-cv-08226-NVW Document 9 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 4
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

 Should an evidentiary hearing be held, Movant will be entitled to the assistance of

counsel. Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255.

- 3 -

provided copies of Movant’s case file to Movant and the extent to which any portion of their

respective case files were not provided to Movant. 

C. Evidentiary Hearing

Finally, Movant requests an evidentiary hearing. Movant’s request is premature prior

to filing of an answer to the § 2255 Motion. See Rule 8(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255.

Therefore, his motion for evidentiary hearing will be denied without prejudice.2

III. Warnings

A. Address Changes

Movant must file and serve a notice of a change of address 10 days before a move is

effective, if practicable. See LRCiv 83.3(d). Movant must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal.

B. Copies

Movant must serve Plaintiff, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a copy of

every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must be accompanied by a

certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Movant

must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCiv 5.4. The Court

may strike any filing that fails to comply with these requirements.

C. Possible Dismissal

Movant is warned that failure to timely comply with every provision of this Order,

including these warnings, may result in dismissal of this action without further notice. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss action

for failure to comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Clerk of Court must deliver copies of the § 2255 Motion (doc.# 1), and this

Order to the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona.

(2) The United States Attorney for the District of Arizona must answer the § 2255

Case 3:09-cv-08226-NVW Document 9 Filed 02/25/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

Motion within sixty (60) days from the date of service of the § 2255 Motion. The United

States Attorney may file an answer limited to relevant affirmative defenses, including but not

limited to, statute of limitations, procedural bar, or non-retroactivity. If the answer is limited

to affirmative defenses, only those portions of the record relevant to those defenses need be

attached to the answer. Failure to set forth an affirmative defense in an answer may be

treated as a waiver of the defense. Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006). If not limited

to affirmative defenses, the answer must fully comply with all of the requirements of Rule

5 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Cases.

(3) Movant may file a reply within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the

answer.

(4) Movant’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis, appoint counsel and compel

production and for an evidentiary hearing are denied. (Doc.# 3, 5, 6, 7.)

(5) The Clerk of Court must deliver copies of this Order on Movant’s former trial

and appellate counsel, Karen M. Wilkinson and Anders V. Rosenquist, Jr., respectively. Ms.

Wilkinson and Mr. Rosenquist must each file an affidavit within 30 days addressing whether,

when, and how each has provided copies of Movant’s case file to Movant and the extent to

which any portion of their respective case files have not been provided to Movant. 

(6) The matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey pursuant to Rules

72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report and

recommendation.

DATED this 21st day of February, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08226-NVW Document 9 Filed 02/25/10 Page 4 of 4