Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02626/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02626-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sabrina Creeger
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

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 MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Sabrina Creeger, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2626-PHX-JAT (JRI)

No. CR 05-272-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On December 11, 2009, Movant Sabrina Creeger, who is confined in the Federal

Correctional Institution-Dublin in Dublin, California, filed a pro se “Motion for Extension

of Time to File 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a

Person in Federal Custody.” In a January 7, 2010 Order, the Court construed the Motion as

a § 2255 Motion and denied it with leave to amend. The Court gave Movant 30 days to file

an amended motion on a court-approved form.

On January 25, 2010, Movant filed an Amended § 2255 Motion (Doc. #4). The Court

will call for an answer to the Amended § 2255 Motion.

I. Procedural History

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Movant pled guilty to Conspiracy to Possess with Intent

to Distribute Methamphetamine and Accessory After the Fact to Murder. On December 10,

2008, the Court sentenced Movant to concurrent sentences, the longest of which was 240

months’ imprisonment, followed by 5 years on supervised release.

Case 2:09-cv-02626-JAT Document 5 Filed 01/29/10 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

II. Amended § 2255 Motion

In her Amended § 2255 Motion, Movant raises two grounds for relief. In Ground

One, she alleges that she received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth

Amendment because (a) she did not make an informed decision about entering into the plea

agreement because her attorney did not know the “basic sentencing guidelines” and misstated

the potential length of the sentence; (b) her attorney failed to file an notice of appeal and an

appeal after Movant requested that he do so; and (c) her attorney refused to give Movant

access to Movant’s case files and, therefore, delayed Movant filing for post-conviction relief.

In Ground Two, she alleges a Fifth Amendment due process violation, asserting that

the government breached the plea agreement because the government did not recommend

that Movant receive a sentence of no more than 15 years and did not make a substantialassistance determination. Movant states that the 15-year promise was not part of the written

plea agreement but that her attorney told her that the government “was offering 15 years in

exchange for her plea.” Movant also claims her attorney was ineffective for failing to raise

the breach-of-plea-agreement issue at sentencing. 

Movant requests that she be resentenced to a fifteen-year term of imprisonment. She

also seeks an evidentiary hearing and the appointment of counsel.

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

III. Evidentiary Hearing and Counsel

The Court will deny as premature Movants’s request for an evidentiary hearing. See

Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts 8(a) (“If the

motion is not dismissed, the judge must review the answer, any transcripts and records of

prior proceedings and any materials submitted under Rule 7 to determine whether an

evidentiary hearing is warranted.”) (emphasis added).

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

Case 2:09-cv-02626-JAT Document 5 Filed 01/29/10 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

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 her 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 her request for 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 he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include 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,

Case 2:09-cv-02626-JAT Document 5 Filed 01/29/10 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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

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) Movant’s requests for an evidentiary hearing and the appointment of counsel

(contained in Doc. #4 in 09-CV-2626-PHX-JAT (JRI)) are denied without prejudice.

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

#4 in 09-CV-2626-PHX-JAT (JRI)) and this Order on the United States Attorney for the

District of Arizona.

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

date of service within which to answer the Amended § 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, 126 S. Ct. 1675, 1684 (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) The matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin 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 28th day of January, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02626-JAT Document 5 Filed 01/29/10 Page 4 of 4