Diaz v. Warden

Background

Felipe Polanco Diaz filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2008 California state conviction for first-degree murder. The opinion states that he received a sentence of 50 years to life in state prison. Diaz had previously challenged the same state-court judgment in a prior related federal habeas proceeding. That earlier petition was denied on the merits. The Court of Appeals dismissed Diaz’s appeal as untimely and denied his motion for reconsideration.

The court directed the clerk to identify Christian Pfeiffer, the warden of the prison where Diaz is housed, as the respondent. The court stated that Pfeiffer was the sole proper respondent because he had day-to-day control over Diaz and was the person who could produce Diaz’s body if required.

Discussion

The court held that the pending petition was a second or successive petition. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), a person seeking to file such a petition must first obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals. Without that authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction, meaning it lacks legal authority to consider the petition. The court stated that Diaz had not shown that he received the required authorization.

Ruling

Judge William H. Orrick ordered that the petition be DISMISSED as second or successive because the Court of Appeals had not authorized its filing. The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue, finding that Diaz had not shown that reasonable judges could debate whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the district court correctly applied the procedural rule.

The court GRANTED Diaz’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee. It ordered the clerk to enter Christian Pfeiffer as the sole respondent, terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of the respondent, and close the file.