Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02330/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02330-1/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

16cr1836-LAB-1 and 17cv2330-LAB

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.

SERGEY VLADIMIR AIZEN,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cr1836-LAB-1 and 

17cv2330-LAB

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 

2255

Petitioner Sergey Vladimir Aizen pled guilty to importation of cocaine 

pursuant to a plea agreement. He was sentenced to 46 months’ imprisonment 

followed by three years’ supervised release. He filed an untimely notice of appeal, 

which was dismissed. The order dismissing his appeal noted that he was not 

foreclosed from filing a motion under 28 U.S.C. ' 2255 bringing ineffective 

assistance of counsel claims, without explaining the factual basis for any of them.

On April 17, the Court issued an order pointing out the deficiencies in Aizen’s 

petition, and giving him leave to amend it no later than May 17, 2018. If he did not 

amend his petition, the order cautioned, the Court would rule on his unamended 

petition. The order, citing United States v. Johnson, 988 F.2d 941, 945 (9th 

Cir.1993), pointed out that merely conclusory claims do not warrant relief. The 

order, citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88, 692 (1984), pointed 

Case 3:17-cv-02330-LAB Document 3 Filed 03/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16cr1836-LAB-1 and 17cv2330-LAB

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

out that, to obtain relief, Aizen was required to show both that his counsel’s 

performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that it 

prejudiced him. Aizen knew that his counsel’s performance was presumed to be 

competent, and that it was his burden to establish ineffective assistance of 

counsel; his own ' 2255 petition (citing Strickland) says as much. (See Docket no. 

35 at 2.) The Court granted Aizen more time to amend his petition (Docket no. 39), 

but he has failed to do so.

As the April 17 order pointed out, the record shows that some of Aizen’s 

claims are baseless. For example, he claimed his attorney failed to negotiate a 

plea agreement for him. In fact, Aizen’s attorney did negotiate a plea agreement; 

it is filed in the docket (Docket no. 17), and Aizen both signed it and initialed each 

page, signifying that he had read it and understood it. (See id. at 12:20–13:1.) The 

record also shows that Aizen understood the risks and benefits of pleading guilty 

pursuant to the plea agreement. (See Docket nos. 15, 19.) 

The remaining claims are purely conclusory, and are supported by no factual 

allegations. “Merely conclusory statements in a § 2255 motion are not enough to 

require a hearing.” Johnson, 988 F.2d at 945 (quoting United States v. Hearst, 638 

F.2d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir. 1980)).

Because record shows that Aizen is entitled to no relief on some of his 

claims, and because all of them are purely conclusory, no hearing on his ' 2255 

petition is necessary. The petition is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2019

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-02330-LAB Document 3 Filed 03/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2