Paz v. Ramirez

Filing 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - Petitioners Applications to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkts. 1 , 6 ) are GRANTED. This entire action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jd)

Case 1:20-cv-00257-BLW Document 9 Filed 08/13/20 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
FEDERICO PAZ,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00257-BLW
Petitioner,
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
vs.
WARDEN RAMIREZ,
Respondents.

On May 28, 2020, Petitioner Federico Paz, who is serving a life sentence without
the possibility of parole, filed his sixth federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. 3.) For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that this case
is subject to summary dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner filed his first §2254 habeas corpus petition with the United States
District Court for the District of Idaho in Case No. 93-cv-00132-WFN, his second in
Case No. 02-cv-00312-MHW, his third in Case No. 11-cv-00335-CWD, his fourth in
Case No. 16-cv-00277-REB, and his fifth in Case No. 16-cv-487-REB. Petitioner’s first
petition was dismissed with prejudice after the parties entered into a stipulation disposing
of all claims, and Petitioner was resentenced from death to a life sentence. (Exhibit A to
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 1

Case 1:20-cv-00257-BLW Document 9 Filed 08/13/20 Page 2 of 5

Order in Case No. 02-cv-00312-MHW, Dkt. 10.) Petitioner’s second, through fifth
petitions were dismissed without prejudice, with notification to Petitioner that he must
obtain authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to
proceed. He did not obtain authorization. Petitioner’s federal Petition for Writ of
Mandamus, filed in Case No. 17-cv-00169-REB, was also unsuccessful.
Here, Petitioner does not allege that he has obtained authorization from the Ninth
Circuit court to file a successive petition.
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
1.

Standard of Review
This Court is required to review the petition to determine whether it is subject to

summary dismissal. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Summary dismissal is
appropriate if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. Id.
2.

Discussion
There is no dispute that the sixth petition is a successive petition. Title 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b) requires a state prisoner seeking to file a second or successive § 2254 habeas
petition to file a motion in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the
district court to consider the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
This Court may not, in the absence of proper authorization from the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, consider a second or successive habeas application. Cooper v.
Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, this Court has no
jurisdiction to consider the new petition. Id. at 1274 (holding that district courts lack
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 2

Case 1:20-cv-00257-BLW Document 9 Filed 08/13/20 Page 3 of 5

jurisdiction to consider unauthorized successive petitions). Therefore, the petition will be
dismissed without prejudice.
Petitioner makes a new argument in this case—that the Idaho Supreme Court is
denying him access to courts to challenge his conviction and sentence by requiring him to
pay for preparation of the record in order to appeal. Petitioner states that he has no funds
to pay the fee and is thus foreclosed from bring his claims before the state appellate
courts because he is a pauper. Petitioner has not provided any facts to show whether his
filings are likely frivolous—which is a proper reason for state courts to reject in forma
pauperis filings. However, because it has now been 20 years since Petitioner’s 1993
federal habeas corpus case was dismissed with prejudice on December 15, 2000, it is
likely that Petitioner exhausted his state court remedies many years ago, and that no
avenue of state court relief remains open to him.
The United States Supreme Court has explained that failing to grant in forma
pauperis status in frivolous cases is not contrary to the Constitution:
[T]he Court waives filing fees and costs for indigent
individuals in order to promote the interests of justice. The
goal of fairly dispensing justice, however, is compromised
when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the
processing of repetitious and frivolous requests. Pro se
petitioners have a greater capacity than most to disrupt the
fair allocation of judicial resources because they are not
subject to the financial considerations—filing fees and
attorney’s fees—that deter other litigants from filing frivolous
petitions. The risks of abuse are particularly acute with
respect to applications for extraordinary relief, since such
petitions are not subject to any time limitations and,
theoretically, could be filed at any time without limitation. In
order to prevent frivolous petitions for extraordinary relief
from unsettling the fair administration of justice, the Court
has a duty to deny in forma pauperis status to those
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 3

Case 1:20-cv-00257-BLW Document 9 Filed 08/13/20 Page 4 of 5

individuals who have abused the system. Under the
circumstances of this case, we find it appropriate to deny in
forma pauperis status to petitioner in this and all future
petitions for extraordinary relief
In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 180 (1991) (citations omitted).
Sindram focused on a frivolous filer’s repetitious requests for issuance of an
extraordinary writ. Here, Petitioner has filed five too many habeas corpus actions without
authorization from the federal appellate court. If he is flooding the state courts with
repetitive petitions, the Idaho Supreme Court has adequate grounds to require him to pay
the appellate fee before he can proceed.
In any event, if Petitioner desires to pursue an access-to-courts claim, he must file
a civil rights action. A claim centered on the Idaho Supreme Court’s unwillingness to
hear collateral challenges to Petitioner’s state criminal conviction without prepayment of
the fee to prepare the court record is not actually a challenge to the validity of his
conviction or sentence. Therefore, such a claim does not sound in habeas corpus. In
accordance with the foregoing, this case will be dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Petitioner’s Applications to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkts. 1, 6) are
GRANTED.
2. This entire action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 4

Case 1:20-cv-00257-BLW Document 9 Filed 08/13/20 Page 5 of 5