United States of America v. Griffin

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 2/1/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RANDY GRIFFIN,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 12 C 533
(04 CR 531)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Following the return of a 2004 indictment that charged him
with multiple currency exchange robberies, Randy Griffin
(“Griffin”) was convicted in a jury trial before this Court’s
then colleague, Honorable David Coar, who has since left the
bench.

As a result of Griffin’s current (and second) 28 U.S.C.

§22551 motion to vacate his conviction, the matter has been
assigned at random to this Court’s calendar.2
This Court has since conducted the preliminary review called
for by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for
the United States District Courts (“Section 2255 Rules”).

It

finds that on Griffin’s own allegations the motion must be denied
on more than one ground.

1

All further references to Title 28’s provisions will
simply take the form “Section--.”
2

Griffin has tendered only the handprinted original of
that motion, without providing the required copies (1) for
service on the United States Attorney’s office and (2) to serve
as this Court’s chambers copy. That deficiency need not be
cured, however, because the motion must be denied out of hand for
the reasons hereafter stated in the text.

In that respect Griffin’s submission is somewhat difficult
to follow.

Here is what he says (copied verbatim) at page 3,

toward the end of his discussion of both Section 2255 generally
and the one-year limitation period prescribed by Section
2255(f)(1):
Petitioner’s Judgement of conviction became final after
petitioner’s C.O.A. was Denied on October 20, 2010
Therefore, petitioner’s initial 28 U.S.C. 2255 is
timely. At this point, petitioner’s only realistic
opportunity to obtain fair and substantial justice
regarding his conviction, sentence, and appellant
rights, is through this instant petition.
Although Griffin says nothing else about the earlier Section
2255 motion, this Court has obtained copies of the relevant
docket printout in Case No. 08 C 6934 (his first Section 2255
motion), and of our Court of Appeals’ October 19, 2010
unpublished order regarding Griffin’s notice of appeal from Judge
Coar’s denial of that motion.

Here is that order in Court of

Appeals Case No. 10-2414:
Randy Griffin has filed a notice of appeal from the
denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. §2255 and an
application for a certificate of appealability. This
court has reviewed the final order of the district
court and the record on appeal. We find no substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See
28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2).
Accordingly, the request for a certificate of
appealability is DENIED. Griffin’s motion to proceed
in forma pauperis is DENIED.
Because Griffin has thus struck out once before in his
effort to obtain Section 2255 relief, the current motion cannot

2

go forward without a prior authorization by the Court of Appeals
(see Section 2244(b)).

That alone consigns the current motion to

the deep six.
But even were that not the case, the current motion must be
denied as untimely.

As stated earlier, the latest action on

Griffin’s rejected Section 2255 motion took place back in 2010.3
Even if Griffin were right in asserting that the denial of the
COA had been “the date on which the judgment of conviction
becomes final” (Section 2255(f)(1))(a position that really makes
no sense, for the conviction itself had become final a good deal
earlier in time), Griffin did not transmit the current motion
until at least January 19, 2012.4

So the motion is out of time

in all events.
It is thus an understatement to say (to quote Section 2255
Rule 4(b)) that “it plainly appears from the motion, any attached
exhibits and the record of prior proceedings that the moving
party is not entitled to relief.”

And that being so, that same

Rule mandates that this Court dismiss the motion, and it so

3

As the docket reflects, the mandate stemming from the
Court of Appeals’ October 19, 2010 denial of a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) issued on December 13, 2010.
4

That is the date he lists as his having signed the
document, so that its selection gives him the benefit of the
doubt under the “mailbox rule” (Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988)).
3

orders.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

February 1, 2012

4