Saso v. USA

Filing 16

ORDER: On February 28, 2025, pro se Petitioner Chandler E. Saso filed the pending 13 Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Grounds 1-29 of the 13 Amended § 2255 Petition survive pr eliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. Ground 30 is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 4. The United States is DIRECTED to respond no later than April 9, 2025. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 3/10/2025. (trf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHANDLER E. SASO,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 24-CV-02707-SPM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
McGLYNN, District Judge:
Petitioner Chandler E. Saso, an inmate currently incarcerated at Federal
Correctional Institution Sheridan, brings the instant Amended Petition to Vacate,
Correct, or Set Aside Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 13). The case is
now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Amended Petition pursuant to
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District
Courts.
On March 27, 2023, Saso pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of
children in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e) as part of a plea agreement. See
United States v. Saso, No. 21-cr-30019-SPM (S.D. Ill. 2023) (Doc. 52). In exchange for
pleading guilty to Count 2 of the Superseding Indictment, see id. (Doc. 42), the
Government agreed to dismiss Count 1, transportation with intent to engage in
criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). See id. (Doc. 52). Saso filed
a Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty on December 22, 2023. (See Doc. 71). On
December 27, 2023, this Court sentenced Saso to a term of 300 months’ imprisonment

Page 1 of 5

with respect to Count 2 with supervised release for life and denied Saso’s Motion to
Withdraw his guilty plea. See id. (Docs. 72, 75). Saso filed a timely Notice of Appeal.
See id. (Doc. 77). The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed his appeal
on October 23, 2024. See United States v. Saso, No. 24-1041, 2024 WL 4553966 (7th
Cir. Oct. 23, 2024). The Seventh Circuit wrote that the “issues about the adequacy of
trial counsel are best reserved for collateral review, where a more fulsome evidentiary
record can be developed.” See id. at *2 (citing Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500,
504–05 (2003); United States v. McClinton, 23 F.4th 732, 737 (7th Cir. 2022)).
Saso filed the instant timely § 2255 Petition attacking his sentence on
December 27, 2024. (See Doc. 1). He filed an Amended Petition on February 28, 2025.
(Doc. 13). In a 241-page filing, he alleges thirty separate claims, most of which argue
for the ineffectiveness of his trial and appellate counsel, Assistant Federal Public
Defender G. Ethan Skaggs. (Id.). However, other claims allege that this Court was
biased against him, thus depriving him of his right to a fair trial (Ground 2) and that
the District Court and Clerk of Court were “ineffective for failing to assist Mr. Saso
with his transcripts” (Ground 30). (Id.).
While his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and of bias against this
Court may be assessed in a § 2255 Petition, Saso’s claim that the District Court and
Clerk of Court were “ineffective” because they failed to send him his requested
transcripts are meritless. Saso cites 28 U.S.C. 753(b) for the proposition that the
district court is required to provide him with free transcripts. (Doc. 13, p. 227). The
Seventh Circuit has held that indigent petitioners lacking other avenues of access
have “an absolute personal right to reasonable access to the pre-existing files and
Page 2 of 5

records of their underlying case.” See Rush v. United States, 559 F.2d 455, 458 (7th
Cir. 1977); see also United States v. Jenkins, 750 F. App’x 486, 487 (7th Cir. 2019)
(citing the same). This Court notes that Saso filed various discovery motions in his
criminal case after his appeal to the Seventh Circuit was denied. See United States v.
Saso, 21-cr-30019-SPM (S.D. Ill. 2023) (Docs. 92, 96, 97, 98, 99).
However, while he claims that he is indigent (Doc. 13, p. 227), Saso does not
provide any evidence of his indigence or that he is unable to pay for the transcripts
he seeks. See Jenkins, 750 F. App’x at 487 (“But the district court’s alternative bases
for denying the motion were permissible. In U.S. ex rel. Davidson v. Wilkinson, we
approvingly noted that the district court required the defendant to ‘exhaust his
private sources of access to transcripts and records’ and further mentioned the
relevance of ‘financial resources.’” 618 F.2d 1215, 1218 & nn.3–4 (7th Cir. 1980))).
Thus, while Saso did attempt to obtain the records from his trial counsel, he does not
provide any argument on why he is unable to obtain paid copies of his transcripts
apart from his self-reported indigence. (See Doc. 13, p. 227). Additionally, like in
Jenkins, Saso is clearly able to articulate his theories of error in his 241-page
Amended Petition without needing additional materials. See 750 F. App’x at 487
(“Jenkins has not explained why he needs the grand jury transcripts to prepare the
initial § 2255 petition. As evidenced by his fifteen-page motion requesting the
transcripts, he is already fully capable of articulating his theory of error . . . . After
filing his petition, Jenkins will be better able to demonstrate the need for the
transcripts, and the district court will be better positioned to review their materiality.
The district court properly denied his motion.”).
Page 3 of 5

This Court also notes that Saso claims that the district court and Clerk of Court
were “ineffective for failing to assist Mr. Saso, with his transcripts.” (Id.). Neither this
Court nor the Clerk of Court had any attorney-client relationship with Mr. Saso and,
thus, he cannot argue that their counsel was ineffective. Furthermore, any claims
regarding his transcripts are related to generation of his § 2255 Petition itself and
are not related to the purported errors of his counsel or the bias of this Court as
related to the underlying conviction and appeal. Therefore, Ground 30 must be
dismissed in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings
for the United States District Courts as it “plainly appears from the petition . . . that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief.”
Saso thus raises two issues: whether or not his trial and appellate counsel was
ineffective and whether or not he was deprived of his right to a fair trial before an
unbiased judge. (Id.). Without commenting on the merits of the claims, the Court
concludes that Grounds 1–29 of the Amended Petition survive preliminary review
under Rule 4. Given the limited record, it is not plainly apparent that Saso is not
entitled to relief pursuant to § 2255 on grounds 1–29. As he is not entitled to relief on
Ground 30, it is DISMISSED with prejudice.
DISPOSITION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent United States of America shall
answer or otherwise plead on or before April 9, 2025. This preliminary order to
respond does not preclude the Government from raising any objection or defense it
may wish to present.
Petitioner Saso is ADVISED of his continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of
Page 4 of 5

Court (and opposing parties) informed of any change in his whereabouts during the
pendency of this action. This notification shall be done in writing and not later than
fourteen (14) days after a transfer or other change in address occurs in accordance
with Local Rule 3.1(b)(2). Failure to provide such notice may result in dismissal of
this case or other sanctions. See id.; FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

March 10, 2025

s/ Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. McGLYNN
U.S. District Judge

Page 5 of 5