Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01515/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01515-0/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 

TERMPSREF 

WO KM 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Jose Benjamin Hernandez, 

Defendant/Movant. 

No. CV 13-1515-PHX-GMS (MHB) 

 CR 09-1114-PHX-GMS 

ORDER 

 Movant Jose Benjamin Hernandez, who is confined in the Federal Correctional 

Institution in Forest City, Arkansas, has filed a pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to 

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. The Court will 

call for an answer to the § 2255 Motion. 

I. Procedural History 

 Movant pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to two counts of Conspiracy to 

Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute 500 Grams or More of a Mixture or 

Substance Containing a Detectable Amount of Methamphetamine, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 846(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii), and Distribution and Possession with Intent to 

Distribute 500 Grams or More of a Mixture or Substance Containing a Detectable 

Amount of Methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii) 

and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On October 21, 2010, the Court sentenced Movant to a 235-month 

term of imprisonment followed by 5 years on supervised release. 

Case 2:13-cv-01515-GMS Document 6 Filed 10/25/13 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

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 

TERMPSREF 

 On October 29, 2010, Movant filed a Notice of Appeal. On May 16, 2012, the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision and mandate affirming Movant’s 

conviction and sentence. 

II. Section 2255 Motion

 Movant raises three grounds for relief in the § 2255 Motion: 

 (1) Movant’s counsel was ineffective in failing to inform Movant of a 

plea offer; 

 (2) Movant’s counsel was ineffective in failing to recommend a 

downward departure for acceptance of responsibility; and 

 (3) Movant’s sentence violates the Constitution because Movant’s 

sentence was enhanced for possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking 

crime, but Movant was not in possession of a firearm. 

 The Court will require a response to the § 2255 Motion. 

III. Motions 

A. Motion for Court Documents 

On August 12, 2013, Movant filed a Motion for Court Documents at Government 

Expense (Doc. 4). Movant seeks a copy of the docket sheet and a copy of the transcripts 

for his change of plea hearing. 

 The Court will grant the Motion to the extent that Court will direct the Clerk of 

Court to send Movant a copy of the docket in CR 09-1114-PHX-GMS. With respect to 

Movant’s request for transcripts, the United States will pay fees for transcripts furnished 

to prisoners who have filed a § 2255 motion if (1) the prisoner has been permitted to 

proceed in forma pauperis, and (2) the Court certifies that the claim raised in the § 2255 

proceeding is not frivolous and the transcript is needed to decide the motion. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 753(f). The Court will deny the Motion, without prejudice, because Movant has not 

sought to proceed in forma pauperis. Moreover, a copy of the transcript for the change of 

plea hearing was ordered for appeal. Movant has not explained why he cannot obtain this 

copy from his appellate counsel. 

Case 2:13-cv-01515-GMS Document 6 Filed 10/25/13 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

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 

TERMPSREF 

B. Motion to Appoint Counsel 

On September 27, 2013, Movant filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel 

(Doc. 5). Counsel must be appointed when necessary for effective discovery and when an 

evidentiary hearing is required. Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings for the United 

States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). At this early juncture, neither are required. 

Appointment is also required when the complexities of the case are such that lack of 

counsel would equate with the denial of due process. Brown v. United States, 623 F.2d 

54, 61 (9th Cir. 1980). There is presently no indication that lack of counsel would result 

in the denial of due process. 

 Otherwise, the court must determine whether the “interests of justice” require the 

appointment of counsel. Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990) 

(quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B)). This determination is guided by an assessment of 

the likelihood of success on the merits and movant’s ability to articulate his claims in 

light of the complexity of the legal issues. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 

1983). Movant has not made the necessary showing for appointment of counsel at this 

time, and, therefore, the Court will deny without prejudice his Motion for Appointment of 

Counsel. If, at a later date, the Court determines that discovery or an evidentiary hearing 

is required, counsel will be appointed in accordance with Rule 6(a) or Rule 8(c) of the 

Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. 

IV. Warnings

A. Address Changes

 Movant must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with 

Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Movant must not include a motion 

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

dismissal of this action. 

B. Copies

 Movant must serve Respondent, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a 

copy of every document that Movant files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include 

Case 2:13-cv-01515-GMS Document 6 Filed 10/25/13 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

TERMPSREF 

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. 

Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Movant. 

C. Possible Dismissal

 If Movant fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including 

these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. 

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

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

 IT IS ORDERED:

 (1) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the § 2255 Motion (Doc. 1 in 

CV 13-1515-PHX-GMS (MHB)), the Memorandum in Support (Doc. 3), and this Order 

on the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona. 

 (2) The parties and the Clerk of Court must file all documents related to the 

§ 2255 Motion in the civil case. 

 (3) The United States Attorney for the District of Arizona has 60 days from the 

date of service within which to answer the § 2255 Motion and Motion for Court 

Documents. 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, 209-11 (2006). If not limited to affirmative defenses, the 

answer must fully comply with all of the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2255 Cases. 

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

answer to the § 2255 Motion. 

 (5) Movant’s August 12, 2013 Motion for Court Documents (Doc. 4) is 

granted in part to the extent that the Clerk of Court must send Movant a copy of the 

Case 2:13-cv-01515-GMS Document 6 Filed 10/25/13 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

TERMPSREF 

docket for CR 09-1114-PHX-GMS. The Motion is denied without prejudice with 

respect to all other relief requested. 

 (6) Movant’s September 27, 2013 Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 5) 

is denied without prejudice. 

 (7) The matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns 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 25th day of October, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-01515-GMS Document 6 Filed 10/25/13 Page 5 of 5