Diaz v. United States of America
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-05426
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Diaz v. United States, Judge Liman denied Diaz’s post-conviction petition without prejudice as premature and denied a certificate of appealability.
Miguel Diaz’s Section 2255 petition was denied without prejudice as prematurely filed. The judgment also denied a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
Miguel Diaz v. United States of America concerns Diaz’s petition for federal post-conviction relief under a law known as Section 2255. The judgment says the petition was filed prematurely.
The court treated Diaz’s request for a writ of habeas corpus as a petition under Section 2255. It denied the petition without prejudice, meaning the judgment did not bar a later filing, and terminated all pending matters.
Judge Lewis Liman also ruled that Diaz had not made the required substantial showing of a constitutional violation, so no certificate of appealability would issue. The court further determined that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Diaz v. United States of America · No. 1:25-cv-05426
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 4, 2025
Nature of the Proceeding
Miguel Diaz filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a request for federal post-conviction relief. The judgment states that the court construed the petition as brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Ruling
For the reasons stated in the court’s September 3, 2025 Order, the court denied the petition without prejudice as prematurely filed. The judgment also states that all pending matters were terminated.
The court determined that the petition did not make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. It therefore ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue. A certificate of appealability is required for this type of appeal.
The court additionally certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The supplied judgment does not explain why the petition was considered premature; it refers to the separate September 3 Order for the reasons.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.