Asmodeo v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 15, 2020
Docket7:20-cv-08330
StatusUnknown

This text of Asmodeo v. United States (Asmodeo v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Asmodeo v. United States, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ant rneep meus, sept meee i SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK oo ROUICALLY □□□□□□ JOHN ASMODEO, ie Be Fee Movant, 20 CV 8330 (VB) 15 CR 327 (VB) -against- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER TO AMEND Respondent. VINCENT L. BRICCETTI, United States District Judge: Movant John Asmodeo pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251. He was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment, followed by a ten-year period of supervised release, United States v. Asmodeo, ECF 7:15-CR-0327, 90 (S.D.N.Y. Feb, 1, 2018), aff’d, 763 F. App’x 75 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 8. Ct. 193 (2019). On October 6, 2020, Asmodeo filed a motion requesting, “additional time to file my 2255 motion for ineffective assistance of councel [sic] or to request appointment of CJA councel [sic] to draft and file a 2255 motion on my behalf.”! (20 Civ. 8330 Doc. # 1.) Asmodeo did not file a § 2255 motion, but his submission does list grounds for relief. STANDARD OF REVIEW A prisoner in federal custody may bring a motion under 28 U.S.C, § 2255 attacking his sentence on the grounds that it is in violation of the Constitution or United States law, was imposed without jurisdiction, exceeds the maximum penalty, or it is otherwise subject to

! Asmodeo failed to sign the motion as required under Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of □ Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P.). Rule 11(a) of the Fed. R. Civ. P. provides that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name — or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” See also Local Civil Rule 11.1(a). The Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 11(a) to require “as it did in John Hancock’s day, a name handwritten (or a mark handplaced).” Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 764 (2001).

collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Under Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, the Court has the authority to review and deny a § 2255 motion prior to directing an answer “[i]f it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that □ the moving party is not entitled to relief.” Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, Rule 4(b); see

Acosta v. Nunez, 221 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir. 2000) (court may sua sponte raise untimeliness of

habeas petition); see also Spinale v. United States, 277 F. App’x 108, 109 (2d Cir. 2008) (applying rule to Section 2255 petition). The Court is obliged, however, to construe pro se

pleadings liberally and interpret them “to raise the strongest arguments they suggest.” Triestman

y. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original); see Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir.

2001). Nevertheless, a pro se litigant is not exempt “from compliance with relevant rules of

procedural and substantive law.” Triestman, 470 F.3d at 477 (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d

90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). DISCUSSION A. Motion for Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Asmodeo’s submission is construed as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

because he seeks to challenge the legality of his conviction and sentence, and he sets forth the

bases for an application for § 2255 relief. See Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 146-47 (2d Cir.

2001) (Section 2255 “is generally the proper vehicle for a federal prisoner’s challenge to his

conviction and sentence”). Because Asmodeo has only one opportunity for a full adjudication of his claims, the

Court grants Asmodeo leave to file an amended § 2255 motion that sets forth all his grounds for

relief and all facts in support of those grounds. If Asmodeo does not respond to this order within

the time allowed, the submission will remain designated as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,

and the Court will order the Government to file an answer or other pleading in response to the

motion. B. Appointment of Counsel In the criminal context, the right to appointed counsel “extends to the first appeal of right, and no further.” Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). Courts have no obligation “to

appoint counsel for prisoners who indicate, without more, that they wish to seek post-conviction relief.” Johnson vy. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 488 (1969). Rather, “the initial burden of presenting a

claim to post-conviction relief usually rests upon the indigent prisoner himself with such help as

he can obtain within the prison walls or the prison system.” Jd. District courts do, however, have discretion to appoint counsel. Section 2255(g) expressly provides that a district court “may appoint counsel,” and that appointment of counsel is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. Section 3006A(a)(2) provides that representation may be provided “for

any financially eligible person” when “the interests of justice so require.” In determining whether the “interests of justice” require the appointment of counsel,

district courts look to Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 6 1-62 (2d Cir. 1985), a Second

Circuit case articulating the factors that courts should consider in determining whether to appoint

an attorney to represent an indigent civil litigant in an analogous context, see, e.g., Toron v.

United States, 281 F. Supp. 2d 591, 593 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); Harrison v. United States, Nos. 06-

CV-2618 & 03-CR-0114-001S, 2006 WL 1867929, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. June 30, 2006). Hodge dictates that “[iJn deciding whether to appoint counsel, . . . the district judge should first determine whether the indigent’s position seems likely to be of substance.” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61. “If the claim meets this threshold requirement, the court should then consider the

indigent’s ability to investigate the crucial facts, whether conflicting evidence implicating the

need for cross-examination will be the major proof presented to the fact finder, the indigent’s

ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues and any special reason in that case why appointment of counsel would be more likely to lead to a just determination.” Jd. at 61-62. The Court has considered these factors and finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. Accordingly, the Court denies Asmodeo’s request for counsel, under 18 U.S.C.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Johnson v. Avery
393 U.S. 483 (Supreme Court, 1969)
Pennsylvania v. Finley
481 U.S. 551 (Supreme Court, 1987)
Becker v. Montgomery
532 U.S. 757 (Supreme Court, 2001)
Toron v. United States
281 F. Supp. 2d 591 (E.D. New York, 2003)
Spinale v. United States
277 F. App'x 108 (Second Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Asmodeo v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asmodeo-v-united-states-nysd-2020.