James v. Diaz

Background

Edbert James III, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction. In 2017, a jury in Contra Costa County Superior Court found him guilty of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and child endangerment. The opinion states that, after a second strike and firearm enhancements were applied, he received a sentence of 109 years to life in state prison. His state appeals and additional state post-conviction petitions were denied.

In January 2020, the court stayed the federal case so James could pursue additional claims in state court. The court directed him to notify it after receiving the California Supreme Court’s decision by filing a motion to reopen. James later filed that motion, an amended petition, and the state high court’s July 16, 2025 decision.

Claims in the Amended Petition

The amended petition asserts claims including ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to consult a mental-health expert about post-traumatic stress disorder, call James’s wife and sister as witnesses, subpoena a witness, and address another issue involving a victim. It also asserts ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, cumulative ineffective assistance, trial-court error concerning the jury instruction on the objective-reasonableness standard for self-defense, and a vagueness challenge to part of California Penal Code § 273a(a), the child-endangerment statute.

The court stated that, liberally construed, the claims are legally cognizable under § 2254 and require a response from the respondent. This was not a decision on whether any claim ultimately succeeds.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

James asked the court to appoint counsel based on mental-health issues, lack of assistance from other prisoners, and indigency. The court explained that the constitutional right to counsel does not apply in federal habeas proceedings. It also stated that appointment is generally discretionary unless an evidentiary hearing is required. Because an evidentiary hearing did not appear necessary at this stage and the circumstances were not sufficiently exceptional, the court denied the motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice to reconsideration if an evidentiary hearing later becomes necessary.

Rulings and Next Steps

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted James’s motion to reopen the case and lifted the stay. The clerk was ordered to reopen the file and serve the order on the respondent and James.

The court ordered Diaz to file and serve an answer within 60 days showing why the requested federal relief should not be granted, along with relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. James may file a response within 30 days after receiving the answer. Diaz may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, with set response and reply deadlines.

The order warns that James must prosecute the case, serve his court filings on the respondent’s counsel, keep the court informed of any address change, and comply with court orders. The court stated that failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order does not resolve the merits of James’s challenges to his conviction.