Gates v. United States of America, No. 2:2020cv00446 - Document 6 (W.D. Wash. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER denying Petitioner's 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Within 45 days of such service, the Government shall file and serve an answer. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (LH) CC to Petitioner via mail on 8/31/2020.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gates v. United States of America Doc. 6 THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 CHRISTOPHER M. GATES, 10 PETITIONER, ORDER v. 11 12 CASE NO. C20-0446-JCC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 13 RESPONDENT. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Christopher M. Gates’s motion under 16 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence (Dkt. No. 1) and his motion to 17 appoint counsel (Dkt No. 2). Having considered the motions and the relevant record, the Court 18 hereby DENIES Gates’s motion to appoint counsel and ORDERS service and an answer by the 19 Government as to the first ground for relief in Gates’s § 2255 petition. 20 I. 21 BACKGROUND In the early morning of June 7, 2015, Lake Forest Police Officer Robert Gross was 22 conducting an area check at the Déjà Vu Adult Cabaret in Lake Forest Park, Washington. See 23 United States v. Gates, Case No. CR15-0253-JCC, Dkt. No. 95 at 2. Officer Gross saw a man, 24 later identified as Gates, reclining in the driver’s seat of a car that was parked in the lot. Id. Gates 25 appeared to be asleep. Id. Officer Gross approached Gates’s car and saw a black pistol in the 26 front passenger seat. Id. Fearing that Gates had been planning to rob Déjà Vu’s female ORDER C20-0446-JCC PAGE - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 employees, Officer Gross roused and detained Gates with the assistance of other officers. Gates, 2 Case No. CR15-0253-JCC, Dkt. No. 37 at 3. During the encounter, Gates gave his driver’s 3 license to the officers, and they requested dispatch check Gates’s name. Id. at 3–4. Dispatch 4 reported that Gates was a convicted felon and was prohibited from possessing any firearms. See 5 id. at 4. Upon receiving the report, Officer Gross arrested Gates for unlawful possession of a 6 firearm. Id. Gates posted bail and was released. Id. at 7. 7 On June 22, 2015, the police pulled Gates over for driving without a front license plate. 8 Id. Although Gates was out on bail, the police’s records erroneously showed that Gates had an 9 active felony warrant. Id. The police arrested Gates and discovered Alprazolam, a controlled 10 substance, in Gates’s front pants pocket. Id. The police also impounded and subsequently 11 searched Gates’s vehicle. Id. at 9. The search uncovered crack cocaine and another firearm. Id. 12 On July 17, 2015, Gates was charged with two counts of felon in possession of a firearm 13 and two counts of possession of a controlled substance. Gates, Case No. CR15-0253-JCC, Dkt. 14 No. 1 at 1–2. Gates subsequently moved to suppress the evidence that the police seized on June 15 7, 2015, on the following grounds: (1) Officer Gross lacked legal authority to be in the Déjà Vu 16 Parking Lot; (2) the officers lacked the requisite suspicion to conduct a Terry stop; and (3) even 17 if the initial Terry stop was proper, the officers arrested Gates without probable cause when they 18 put him in handcuffs. See Gates, Case No. CR15-0253-JCC, Dkt. No. 91 at 2–5. The Court 19 denied the motion after considering and rejecting each ground. See Gates, Case No. CR15-0253- 20 JCC, Dkt. Nos. 38 at 4–8, 91 at 2–5. The Court also denied Gates’s motion to suppress the 21 evidence that the police seized after impounding his car. See Gates, Case No. CR15-0253-JCC, 22 Dkt. No. 91 at 6–8. 23 On November 29, 2016, the Court found Gates guilty following a bench trial with 24 stipulated facts. See Gates, Case No. CR15-0253-JCC, Dkt. Nos. 95–96. The Court sentenced 25 Gates to time served and imposed a three-year period of supervised release. See Gates, Case No. 26 CR15-0253-JCC, Dkt. No. 104 at 1–3. Gates appealed to the Ninth Circuit. See generally United ORDER C20-0446-JCC PAGE - 2 1 States v. Gates, 755 F. App’x 649 (9th Cir. 2018). In his appeal, Gates argued that the evidence 2 from the June 7 search should be suppressed for the following reasons: (1) the officers lacked 3 reasonable suspicion for the Terry stop that led the officers to seize Gates’s gun; (2) the officers 4 arrested Gates without probable cause when they put him in handcuffs; and (3) Gates gave his 5 driver’s license to the officers involuntarily. See id. at 650–51. The Ninth Circuit concluded that 6 the first and second challenge lacked merit. See id. The Ninth Circuit declined to reach the merits 7 of Gates’s third challenge because Gates had not properly raised the issue before the Court. See 8 id. at 651. However, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the police improperly searched Gates’s 9 impounded vehicle. See id. at 651–52. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit vacated Gates’s sentence 10 and remanded the case. Id. 11 Upon remand, the Court dismissed two of the counts against Gates and resentenced him 12 to time served plus three years of supervised release. See Gates, Case No. CR15-0253-JCC, Dkt. 13 Nos. 130 at 1, 133 at 1–3. Gates now seeks to challenge his amended sentence under 28 U.S.C. 14 § 2255. (Dkt. No. 1.) 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 A. Legal Standard 17 To state a cognizable § 2255 claim, a petitioner must assert that he or she is in custody in 18 violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, that the district court lacked 19 jurisdiction, that the sentence exceeded the maximum allowed by law, or that the sentence is 20 otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Before directing service and answer 21 to a § 2255 petition, the Court must determine whether the motion, the files, and the records of 22 the case “conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). 23 B. Gates’s Grounds for Relief 24 In his § 2255 petition, Gates raises four grounds for relief: (1) the officers involuntarily 25 seized his identification, which lead to the probable cause for his arrest; (2) the officers de-facto 26 arrested him; (3) the officers had no reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop; and (4) the basis for ORDER C20-0446-JCC PAGE - 3 1 the Terry stop was illegal because the officers did not have a right to be in the Déjà Vu parking 2 lot after hours. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 4–8.) The Court concludes that while service and answer by the 3 Government is warranted on the first ground, Gates is not entitled to relief on the other grounds. 4 5 1. Ground One When Gates was first before the Court, he never argued that the officers involuntarily 6 seized his identification. See Gates, 755. F. App’x at 651. As a result, the Ninth Circuit 7 concluded that Gates waived the argument. See id. This waiver might also bar Gates from raising 8 the argument in a § 2255 petition. See Egger v. United States, 509 F.2d 745, 749 (9th Cir. 1975). 9 However, the record does not conclusively establish whether Gates’s argument is barred. 10 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Government to file and serve an answer addressing Gates’s 11 first ground for relief. 12 13 2. Ground Two The Court and the Ninth Circuit rejected Gates’s argument that the officers “de-facto” 14 arrested him before they learned that he was a convicted felon who was prohibited from 15 possessing firearms. See Gates, Case No. CR15-0253-JCC, Dkt. No. 37 at 6–7; Gates, 755 F. 16 App’x at 651. Accordingly, Gates may not relitigate the argument in a § 2255 petition absent a 17 change in the law or a manifest injustice. See Polizzi v. United States, 550 F.2d 1133, 1136 (9th 18 Cir. 1976). Neither are present here. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Gates’s second ground 19 for relief. The Court also finds that no reasonable jurist would disagree that Gates’s second 20 ground for relief is baseless. The Court therefore DENIES a certificate of appealability as to that 21 ground. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). 22 23 3. Ground Three The Court and the Ninth Circuit likewise rejected Gates’s claim that the officers lacked 24 reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop. See Gates, Case No. CR15-0253-JCC, Dkt. Nos. 38 at 4–8, 25 91 at 2–5; Gates, 755 F. App’x at 650–51. The legal basis for those decisions remains sound. 26 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Gates’s third ground for relief. The Court also finds that no ORDER C20-0446-JCC PAGE - 4 1 reasonable jurist would disagree that Gates’s third ground for relief is baseless. The Court 2 therefore DENIES a certificate of appealability as to that ground. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); 3 Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327. 4 4. Ground Four 5 On his appeal to the Ninth Circuit, Gates’s failed to raise the argument that the officers 6 did not have a right to be in the Déjà Vu parking lot after hours. But the Court had considered 7 and rejected the argument prior to Gates’s appeal, noting that Officer Gross had testified that he 8 was in the parking lot at Déjà Vu’s request and that Gates lacked a reasonable expectation of 9 privacy while sleeping in the parking lot. See Gates, Case No. CR15-0253-JCC, Dkt. No. 91 at 10 2–3. The Court can find no change to the law that would make it rethink its prior decision. 11 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Gates’s fourth ground for relief. The Court also finds that 12 no reasonable jurist would disagree that Gates’s fourth ground for relief is baseless. The Court 13 therefore DENIES a certificate of appealability as to that ground. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); 14 Miller-, 537 U.S. at 327. 15 C. Motion to Appoint Counsel 16 Gates also moves for the Court to appoint counsel. (Dkt. No. 2.) There is no general right 17 to have counsel appointed in cases brought under § 2255 unless an evidentiary hearing is 18 required. See Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988). The Court may, 19 however, exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for a financially eligible individual where the 20 “interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. 21 It would be premature to appoint counsel at this time. The Court has not yet considered 22 whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary, and the interests of justice do not require Gates to 23 have counsel at this time. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel 24 (Dkt. No. 5). 25 III. 26 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows: ORDER C20-0446-JCC PAGE - 5 1 1. If not previously accomplished, electronic posting of this order and petition shall effect 2 service upon the United States Attorney of copies of Gates’s § 2255 motion and of all 3 documents in support thereof. 4 2. Within 45 days of such service, the Government shall file and serve an answer in 5 accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Cases in United States District 6 Courts. The Government must limit its answer to Gates’s first ground for relief. In 7 addition, the Government must state whether it believes that an evidentiary hearing is 8 necessary, whether there is any issue as to abuse or delay under Rule 9, and whether 9 Gates’s motion is barred by the statute of limitations. 10 3. On the face of the answer, the Government must note the answer for the Court’s 11 consideration on the fourth Friday after the answer is filed. Gates must file and serve any 12 reply to the answer no later than that noting date. 13 14 4. Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED. DATED this 28th day of August 2020. 17 A 18 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER C20-0446-JCC PAGE - 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
