Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_19-cv-08019/USCOURTS-alnd-2_19-cv-08019-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARCELLA W. TRUSS,

Petitioner,

vs.

UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:19-CV-8019-SLB

Crim. Case No. 2:14-CR-114-SLB-JEO-1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case is before the court on Motion Under U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set

Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [hereinafter Motion to

Vacate], filed by petitioner Marcella W. Truss. (Doc. 1; crim. doc. 227.)

1 For the

reasons set forth herein, Ms. Truss’s Motion to Vacate will be denied with leave to

refile.

Ms. Truss’s Motion to Vacate alleges the following 17 grounds for relief:

“Ineffective [A]ssistance ofCounsel at Pretrial and Investigative Stage of

Proceedings[.]” (Doc. 1 at 4.)

1Citations to documents in the court's record in petitioner's Motion to Vacate

appear as “(doc. __).” Citations to documents in the court’s record in the criminal

proceedings against petitioner, Case No. 2:14-CR-114-SLB-JEO-1, appear as “(crim.

doc. __).” Page number citations refer to the page numbers assigned to the document

by the court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system.

FILED

 2020 Mar-26 AM 09:55

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:19-cv-08019-SLB Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 1 of 9
1. Counsel failed “to procure information necessary to make

tactical decision for trial.” (Id.)

2. Counsel failed “to investigate [and] interview [w]itness.” (Id.)

3. “Counsel's strategic choices [made] without investigation [were] not

reasonable.” (Id.)

4. “Counsel[ ] [was] ineffective for lack of pretrial consultation with

client.” (Id.)

5. Counsel failed “to introduce defendant's diminished capacity in

order for court to consider USSG 5K2.13 [Downward]

Departure[,] which would have resulted in a lesser sentence, and

to jury for consideration and deliberations.” (Id. at 5.)

“Ineffective [A]ssistance of Counsel in [T]rial [S]tage of[P]roceedings.” 

(Id. at 6.)

6. “Counsel's errors in combination deprived Truss of a

meaningful defense.” (Id.)

7. “Counsel failed to preserve appropriate issues on the record for

appropriate appellate review.” (Id.)

8. “Counsel failed to successfully enter evidence on record and

request evidence supporting Truss[’s] lack of involvement in [the]

conspiracy presented to the jury, or [to object] to court's denial

thereof.” (Id.)

“Ineffective assistance of Counsel at pre-sentencing/sentencing stage of

proceeding[.]” (Id. at 7.)

9. “Counsel failed to prepare defendant for PSR interview or be

present during PSR interview.” (Id.)

2

Case 2:19-cv-08019-SLB Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 2 of 9
10. “Counsel failed to . . . request[ ] that the Court rule on [her]

objections to the PSR.”

2

 (Id.)

11. “Sentencing Counsel [was] ineffective due to [his] inability to

prepare because oflast minute transition/appointment of counsel.” 

(Id.)

12. “Counsel failed to motion court for downward departure [to]

which defendant was entitled.” (Id.)

13. Counsel failed “to object to Court’s vindictive sentencing

approach.” (Id.)

“Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel[.]” (Id. at 8.)

14. Appellate Counsel failed “to request [a] rehearing [en banc] before

[panel].” (Id.)

15. “Appellate Counsel failed to address district court’s [Fed. R. Crim.

P.] 32(c) violationsregarding failure to make ruling on PSR objection[.]”

3

(Id.)

2The ground is without merit. Ms. Truss cannot show any prejudice resulted

from her counsel’s failure to ask the court to rule on Ms. Truss’s objections to the PSR

because the court ruled on all the objections during the sentencing hearing. (See doc.

209 at 38-39.)

3This ground is without merit. Specifically, Rule 32(c) sets forth the probation

officer’s responsibilities during the presentence investigation. See Fed. R. Crim. P.

32(c). Subsection (i)(3)(B)setsforth the court’sresponsibility forruling on objections:

“At sentencing, the court . . . (B) must – for any disputed portion of the presentence

report or other controverted matter – rule on the dispute or determine that a ruling is

unnecessary either because the matter will not affect sentencing, or because the court

will not consider the matter in sentencing . . . .” As set forth above, supra note 2, the

court ruled on all the objections at sentencing.

3

Case 2:19-cv-08019-SLB Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 3 of 9
16. “Counsel fail[ed] to [argue reasonableness] of sentence in light of

proper consideration of 3553(a) factors.” (Id.)

17. “App[e]llate Counsel . . . fail[ed] to make . . . argument that

trial counsel [had provided ineffective assistance].” (Id.)

The Motion to Vacate contains no specific facts supporting the claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel. Also, the Motion to Vacate is not signed under penalty of

perjury.

“Section 2255 authorizes a federal prisoner to move the court of conviction to

vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence on the ground that the sentence was imposed

in violation of the Constitution or laws ofthe United States.” Snoddy v. United States,

No. 2:07-CR-0069-JHH-PWG, 2012WL1745591, *3 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 20, 2012)(citing

28 U.S.C. § 2255(a)), report and recommendation adopted 2012 WL 1745548 (N.D.

Ala. May 14, 2012). Rule 2(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings

“mandate[s] ‘fact pleading’ as opposed to ‘notice pleading,’ as authorized under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).” Borden v. Allen, 646 F.3d 785, 810 (11th Cir.

2011)(citing, inter alia, McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994)). Rule 2(b)

states:

The motion [to vacate] must:

(1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the moving party;

(2) state the facts supporting each ground;

4

Case 2:19-cv-08019-SLB Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 4 of 9
(3) state the relief requested;

(4) be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and

(5) be signed under penalty of perjury by the movant or by a

person authorized to sign it for the movant.

5

Case 2:19-cv-08019-SLB Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 5 of 9
Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, Rule 2(b).

4 The form Motion to Vacate

used by Ms. Trussrepeatedly instructsthe movant to “[s]tate the facts supporting each

ground.” (See doc. 1 at 4; see also id. (“Do not argue or cite law. Just state the

4

“Section 2255 is a habeas-like provision governing postconviction challenges

brought by prisoners in custody due to the sentence of a federal court – the ‘fraternal

twin’ of § 2254.” Weakley v. Marshall, No. 3:19-CV-0549-RDP-JHE, 2019 WL

7576814, at *2 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 13, 2019)(quoting Scott v. United States, 890 F.3d

1239, 1243 (11th Cir. 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 136870

(N.D. Ala. Jan. 13, 2020). Therefore, “precedent interpreting one of these parallel

[rules] is instructive for interpreting its counterpart.” See Stewart v. United States, 646

F.3d 856, 859 n.6 (11th Cir. 2011)(citations omitted).

Rule 2(b) ofthe Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings and Rule 2(c) ofthe

Rules for Section 2254 Cases are substantially similar. The § 2254 rule, Rule 2(c),

states:

The petition must:

(1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner;

(2) state the facts supporting each ground;

(3) state the relief requested;

(4) be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and

(5) be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a

person authorized to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2242.

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 2(c).

6

Case 2:19-cv-08019-SLB Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 6 of 9
specific factsthat support your claim.”); id. at 6-8 (same).) Ms. Truss did not state any

facts to support her claims in her Motion to Vacate and she did not sign her Motion.

“When a § 2255 motion isfiled, it issubject to preliminary review, at which time

the court is authorized to dismiss the motion summarily ‘[i]fit plainly appears from the

motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of the prior proceedings that the moving

party is not entitled to relief.’” Snoddy, 2012 WL 1745591 at *3 (quoting Rule 4(b),

Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings). Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing §

2255 Proceedings, this court is “authorized to dismiss summarily any [§ 2255 Motion

to Vacate] that appears legally insufficient on its face.”

5 McFarland, 512 U.S. at 856.

Therefore, a movant’s “generalized allegation that counsel wasineffective . . . , without

any further facts concerning [counsel’s deficient performance] orthe [prejudice caused

by the deficient performance], does not satisfy Rule 2[(b)]’s requirement,” and will

subject the § 2255 Motion to Vacate to summary dismissal. See Shumaker v. Sec’y of

5Rule 4(b) of the § 2255 Rules mirrors Rule 4 of the § 2254 Rules. Rule 4(b)

of the Rules Governing section 2255 Proceedings states: “‘If it plainly appears from

the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving

party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion and direct the clerk to

notify the moving party.’” Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, Rule 4(b),

quoted in Borden v. Allen, 646 F.3d 785, 810 n.32 (11th Cir. 2011). Rule 4 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Casesstates: “Ifit plainly appearsfromthe petition and

any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the

judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 4, quoted in Borden, 646 F.3d at 810 n.32.

7

Case 2:19-cv-08019-SLB Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 7 of 9
Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No. 3:17CV546-RV/MJF, 2019 WL 7878915, *21-22 (N.D. Fla.

Dec. 4, 2019)(citing, inter alia, Hittson v. GDCP Warden, 759 F.3d 1210, 1265 and

1269 (11th Cir. 2014)), report and recommendation adopted, No.

3:17CV546-RV/MJF, 2020 WL 608281 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2020).

To satisfy the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 2(b), Ms. Truss must

plead facts that – 

show [her] counsel’s conduct “‘fell below an objective standard of

reasonableness,’” and that, “‘but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the

result ofthe proceeding would have been different.’” Hittson, 759 [F.3d]

at 1262 (quoting Strickland [v. Washington], 466 U.S. [668,] 688, 694).

Additionally, courts must give “a strong presumption that counsel’s

conduct falls within the wide range ofreasonable professional assistance,”

and for [Ms. Truss] to overcome that presumption, [she] must “establish

that no competent counsel would have taken the action that his counsel

did take.” Id. at 1263 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

[Ms. Truss] therefore, must plead specific facts that demonstrate why

[her] counsel's actions fell below the objective standard of

reasonableness and why the outcome would have been different absent

the alleged error. [She] cannot merely allege that counsel should have

done things differently. See id. (“With unlimited time and the benefit of

hindsight, a petitioner can come up with any number of potentially

meritoriousineffective assistance claimsthat he now wished his collateral

counsel had raised.”).

Arrington v. Warden, GDCP, No. CV 117-022, 2017 WL4079405, *5 (S.D. Ga. Sept.

14, 2017)(emphasis added); see Adams v. United States, No. 19-11068-C, 2019 WL

4643730, *1 (11th Cir. Aug. 20, 2019)(order denying certificate of appealability;

movant failed to properly allege claims ofineffective assistance of counsel because she

8

Case 2:19-cv-08019-SLB Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 8 of 9
“did not sufficiently [and specifically] [1] identify how her attorneys erred, [2] what

they could have done differently, or [3] how different conduct would have affected the

result of her proceeding”). 

Based on the foregoing, the court will deny Ms. Truss’s Motion to Vacate, but

allow her leave to amend.6 On or before May 22, 2020, Ms. Truss may file an

Amended Motion to Vacate that satisfiesthe heightened pleading requirements ofRule

2(b). For each claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Ms. Truss shall describe,

specifically, the act or omission of her attorneys that she alleges were outside the wide

range of professionally competent assistance, what action counsel should have done,

and how, but for counsel incompetent performance the result would have been

different. Ms. Truss must sign the Amended Motion to Vacate under penalty of

perjury. Failure to file an Amended Motion to Vacate that satisfies the requirement of

Rule 2(b) will result in summary dismissal of this case without further notice.

An Order will be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion.

DONE this 26th day of March, 2020.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6Ms. Truss may not add new grounds for relief as such new grounds would be

time barred.

9

Case 2:19-cv-08019-SLB Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 9 of 9