Griffin v. LaManna

── Griffin v. LaManna ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General 24-3009-pr Griffin v. LaManna United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term 2025 Argued: November 18, 2025 Decided: April 29, 2026 No. 24-3009-pr GARY GRIFFIN AKA G-MONEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JAMIE LAMANNA, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York No. 19-cv-155 Brenda K. Sannes, Chief Judge. Before: LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, and RAGGI and PARK, Circuit Judges. Gary Griffin, a New York state prisoner, filed an unsuccessful federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After the district court (Sannes, C.J.) denied his petition, Griffin failed to meet the deadline to file an appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). He moved for an extension of time under Rule 4(a)(5), which the district court also denied. Griffin now seeks to appeal the denial of his Rule 4(a)(5) motion, but he may not do so without first obtaining a certificate of appealability. This is because the district court’s decision concluded the habeas proceeding, making it a “final order” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a). And we decline to issue a certificate of appealability here because reasonable jurists would not find it debatable whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Griffin’s Rule 4(a)(5) motion. We thus lack jurisdiction and DISMISS Griffin’s appeal. JASPER L. MILLS, ESQ., Schenectady, NY, for Petitioner-Appellant. PAUL B. LYONS, Assistant Attorney General, for Letitia James, Attorney General of New York, New York, NY, for Respondent- Appellee. PARK, Circuit Judge: Gary Griffin, a New York state prisoner, filed an unsuccessful federal habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After the district court denied his petition, Griffin failed to meet the deadline to file an appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). He moved for an extension of time under Rule 4(a)(5), which the district court also denied. Griffin now seeks to appeal the denial of his Rule 4(a)(5) motion, but he may not do so without first obtaining a certificate of appealability. This is because the district court’s decision concluded the habeas proceeding, making it a “final order” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a). And we decline to issue a certificate of appealability here because reasonable jurists would not find it 2 debatable whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Griffin’s Rule 4(a)(5) motion. We thus lack jurisdiction and dismiss Griffin’s appeal. I. BACKGROUND Gary Griffin is a New York state prisoner convicted of first- degree murder, conspiracy, intimidation of a victim or witness, tampering with a witness, criminal possession of a weapon, and criminal facilitation. He is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Griffin filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his convictions. On April 30, 2024, the district court denied Griffin’s petition on the merits and declined to issue a certificate of appealability (“COA”). Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), his deadline to appeal from the denial of the petition was May 30, 2024. Griffin missed that deadline and instead filed a notice of appeal on June 21, 2024, 1 along with a motion for an extension of time to appeal under Rule 4(a)(5). That motion asserted that (1) Griffin’s counsel did not learn