Adams v. United States of America

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 2 Motion for Extension of Time; granting 6 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying without prejudice 3 Motion for Discovery; denying without prejudice 9 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 6/16/11 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
NORTHERN DIVISION

IRVEN DOUGLAS ADAMS,
Petitioner,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 2:08CV774 DAK
Respondent.

This matter is before the court on Petitioner Irven Douglas Adams’s Motion for
Extension of Time, a Motion for Discovery, a Motion to Appoint Counsel, and a Motion for
Evidentiary Hearing. All of the motions relate to his pending Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or
Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Before Mr. Adams filed his § 2255 petition, the court had responded to a letter from Mr.
Adams in which he had requested an extension of time to file his petition due to lock-down
conditions at the prison. The court indicated that once it had jurisdiction, it would grant an
extension of time and also permit an amended motion to be filed when conditions at the prison

improved.1 Mr. Adams then filed a handwritten petition, which was over one-hundred pages
long.2 He also filed a motion for extension of time to file a typed, “more legible” brief.3
In December 2008, Mr. Adams filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. In the
motion, he also noted that the prison had been on lockdown again (and would remain under lock
down for the foreseeable future) and that he had only been able to type half of his § 2255
petition.
In March 2010, Petitioner filed a document, indicating that he had sent in the typed
version in November 2009 but that it was not on the court docket.4 Unfortunately, the court was
unaware of this correspondence until recently and thus did not know that Petitioner had filed an
amended, typed version of the petition.
Although the motion for an extension of time is somewhat moot at this point, given that
Mr. Adams appears to have filed a typed version in November 2009, the court now formally
grants the motion for an extension of time and finds that Mr. Adams timely filed his § 2255
petition.
The court also grants Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. The court finds
that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel in this case because of the many

1

See Docket No. 4, letter dated November 25, 2008. The court had also sent a previous letter,
dated September 24, 2008.
2

3

4

See Docket No. 1.
See Docket No. 2.

Petitioner claims to have a receipt from the filing, and the court does not doubt that he filed a
typed brief in November 2009. Around that time, there were some docketing problems in the
court, and it is possible that the document was received but never docketed.
2

issues Petitioner appears to have raised, the complexity of some of the issues surrounding his
sentencing, which occurred soon after the United States Supreme Court decided Blakely v.
Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and Petitioner’s life sentence. Counsel is directed to redraft
and refile the petition, after reviewing the November 2009 version (which will have to be
provided by Mr. Adams) and eliminating any ground devoid of merit.
Petitioner is reminded that issues that have already been considered and disposed of on
direct appeal may not be raised under § 2255. See United States v. Warner, 23 F.3d 287, 291
(10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Cook, 997 F.2d 1312, 1328 n.6 (10th Cir. 1993); United States v.
Prichard, 875 F.2d 789, 791 (10th Cir. 1989). Similarly, Section 2255 is not a vehicle for testing
the legality of matters which should have been raised on appeal.” United States v. Allen, 16
F.3d 377, 378 (10th Cir. 1994).
The amended petition shall be filed by no later than September 30, 2011, unless a motion
for an extension of time is filed by counsel. The government is directed to respond to the
amended petition within ninety days after the amended petition is filed by counsel.
With regard to Petitioner’s Motion for Discovery, the court declines to grant the motion
at this juncture. Appointed counsel, however, may refile such a motion if it is warranted.
Finally, the court also denies at this time Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing. The
court will consider such a request after the § 2255 petition has been fully briefed.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to
Appoint Counsel [Docket No. 6] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to forward this

3

Order to the appropriate Magistrate Judge, who is directed to appoint counsel under 18 U.S.C. §
3006A(a)(2)(B).
In addition, Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time [Docket No. 2] is GRANTED, and
his petition is deemed timely filed. Appointed counsel may have until September 30, 2011 to
file an amended Petition.5
The Motion for Discovery [Docket No. 3] is DENIED without prejudice to renew at a
later date, and the Motion for Evidentiary Hearing [Docket No. 9] is also DENIED without
prejudice to renew at a later date.
The United States is directed to respond within ninety days after the amended petition is
filed.
DATED this 16th day of June, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge

5

If more time is needed, counsel may file a Motion for Extension of Time.
4