Chukwu v. USA
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - denying 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 1/28/25. (jrj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
NNAMDI JOEL CHUKWU,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil Case No. 2:24-CV-170 TS
Criminal Case No. 2:20-CR-284 TS
Respondent.
District Judge Ted Stewart
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate,
Set Aside, or Correct Sentence; the government’s Response ; and Petitioner’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. Having reviewed these filings, the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is
required.
Petitioner pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Launder Money. He now alleges that his previous
counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him that there could be immigration consequences to
his guilty plea. 1 To support this contention, Petitioner has submitted, among other things, an
affidavit in support of his Motion. 2 The government filed an answer denying that Petitioner’s
previous counsel failed to inform him of the potential of such consequences. 3 In support, the
government provided a declaration from Petitioner’s previous counsel, a series of text messages
1
Docket No. 1.
2
Docket No. 1-2.
3
Docket No. 18.
1
between Petitioner and his former counsel, and a declaration from an immigration attorney who
allegedly consulted Petitioner before Petitioner’s guilty plea.
The government also included a “Memorandum of law in Opposition to Petition,” which
argued that a hearing on the Motion was unnecessary based on the evidence provided by the
government. Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment arguing that,
based on the evidence presented by both parties, there is no material fact requiring a hearing, and
the Court should grant judgment in favor of Petitioner. 4 The parties therefore agree that a hearing
is not necessary.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(b) provides that the Court “shall” hold a hearing on a § 2255 motion
“[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is
entitled to no relief.” A counsel’s failure to advise their client that a guilty plea could subject them
to deportation proceedings can amount to a finding of constitutionally deficient counsel. 5 Upon
careful review of the filings in this case, the Court cannot say conclusively that Mr. Chukwu is
entitled to no relief. Therefore, the Court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing. 6 The Court
will, accordingly, schedule an evidentiary hearing and deny Petitioner’s Motion for Summary
Judgment.
4
Docket No. 19.
5
See Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010).
6
Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 494–95 (1962) (stating that where “[t]he factual
allegations contained in the petitioner’s motion and affidavit” are “put in issue by the affidavit filed
with the Government's response” and “relate[ ] primarily to purported occurrences outside the
courtroom and upon which the record could . . . cast no real light,” a hearing is required).
2
It is therefore
ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 19) is DENIED.
DATED January 28, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?