DIAZ v. United States
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-05428
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Diaz v. United States: Judge Liman denied Diaz’s premature conviction challenge without prejudice while his direct appeal remained pending.
Miguel Diaz’s challenge to his federal conviction was denied without prejudice because his direct appeal was still pending; the court did not reach the Second Amendment issue.
What happened
In DIAZ v. United States, Miguel Diaz challenged his federal conviction under the Second Amendment through a petition labeled as a challenge to how his sentence was being carried out.
Diaz had pleaded guilty to possessing ammunition as a felon, received a 112-month prison sentence and three years of supervised release, and had a direct appeal pending. The court treated his filing as the type of motion used to challenge a federal conviction.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion without prejudice because it was filed before the direct appeal was finished. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
The detailed version
- DIAZ v. United States · No. 1:25-cv-05428
- Lewis Liman
- July 18, 2025
Background
Miguel Diaz filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his April 11, 2025 federal conviction. The petition argued that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment. The case had originally been filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was transferred to the Southern District of New York.
Diaz had pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition. The court sentenced him to 112 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. Diaz filed a direct appeal, which remained pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit under No. 25-910.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a petition under § 2241 generally challenges how a federal sentence is carried out, such as sentence calculations, prison discipline, or prison conditions. A motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the usual method for a federal prisoner to challenge the constitutionality of the conviction or sentence itself.
Because Diaz had been sentenced and was challenging his conviction, the court construed his § 2241 petition as a motion under § 2255. The court stated that a criminal defendant generally must pursue a direct appeal before filing a § 2255 motion. Although a district court may have authority to consider such a motion while an appeal is pending, the court declined to do so to avoid having the same issues before two courts and to avoid reaching a decision that could be affected by the appeal.
Ruling
The court denied the petition, as construed under § 2255, without prejudice as prematurely filed because Diaz’s direct appeal was not yet final. The ruling did not decide whether Diaz’s Second Amendment challenge was valid. The court stated that denying the motion without prejudice would not trigger the statutory restrictions on a later second or successive § 2255 motion concerning the conviction or sentence.
The court terminated all pending matters and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. It also determined that Diaz had not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, so a certificate of appealability would not issue. The court further certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.