Griffin v. LaManna

No. 24-3009-pr (2d Cir. Apr. 29, 2026) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · April 29, 2026 · No. 24-3009-pr

Summary

The Second Circuit dismissed Gary Griffin’s appeal from the denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) to extend the time to appeal the denial of his federal habeas petition. The court held that a certificate of appealability was required because the order concluded the habeas proceeding, and declined to issue one because reasonable jurists would not debate whether the district court abused its discretion in finding no excusable neglect.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
PARK, Circuit Judge; Debra Ann Livingston, Chief Judge; Reena Raggi, Circuit Judge; J. Philip Park, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decision date
April 29, 2026
Docket number
24-3009-pr
Procedural posture
Appeal from the denial of a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) to extend the time to appeal the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition.
Standard of review
The court reviews denial of a Rule 4(a)(5) motion for abuse of discretion. A certificate of appealability requires a showing that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the district court abused its discretion.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Gary Griffin aka G-Money v. Jamie LaManna
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

federal habeas corpusstate post-conviction reliefwrit of certiorariappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

Federal habeas corpusAppellate procedurePost-conviction relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) motion extending the time to appeal the denial of a state-prisoner habeas petition.
  2. Whether Griffin was entitled to a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists could debate whether the district court abused its discretion in finding no excusable neglect under Rule 4(a)(5).

Holdings

  1. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal an order denying a Rule 4(a)(5) motion to extend the time to appeal the denial of a habeas petition because that order concludes the habeas proceeding in the district court and is therefore a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).
  2. Griffin was not entitled to a certificate of appealability because no reasonable jurist would find it debatable whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 4(a)(5) motion.

Key quotations

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that a COA is required to appeal an order denying a Rule 4(a)(5) motion to extend the time to appeal the denial of a habeas petition. (11)
The appeal is accordingly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (11)

Factual background

Griffin, a New York state prisoner serving a life sentence without parole, filed a federal habeas petition challenging convictions including first-degree murder and related offenses. After the district court denied the petition, Griffin missed the deadline for appealing. His counsel attributed the delay to staff absences, misunderstandings about receipt of the judgment, difficulty contacting Griffin, prison communication delays, and counsel's workload.

Procedural history

The Northern District of New York denied Griffin's § 2254 habeas petition on the merits on April 30, 2024, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Griffin missed the appeal deadline, filed a notice of appeal late, and moved under Rule 4(a)(5) for an extension based on alleged excusable neglect. The district court denied the extension and declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and Griffin timely appealed that denial.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…