Griffin v. Erickson
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-02807
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Griffin v. Erickson, Magistrate Judge Bullard recommended dismissing the challenge with prejudice and denying the fee waiver as moot because civil litigation was improper.
Bryant Duane Griffin, whose civil challenge to his federal conviction and sentence was recommended for dismissal with prejudice; his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was recommended for denial as moot, and monthly filing-fee payments were recommended.
What happened
In Bryant Duane Griffin v. Joan Erickson, Lisa Kirkpatric, and United States, Griffin challenged his federal conviction and 240-month sentence, including a sentence enhancement and alleged trial unfairness. He sought immediate release.
The magistrate judge explained that a federal prisoner generally must challenge a conviction or sentence through a motion under a specific federal statute, not an ordinary civil lawsuit. Griffin had already filed such a motion, so the court recommended not converting this case into another one.
Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard recommended dismissing the action with prejudice, denying Griffin’s application to proceed without paying court costs as moot, and requiring monthly collection of the filing fee. The recommendation was not a final order, and the notice allowed objections.
The detailed version
- Griffin v. Erickson · No. 0:25-cv-02807
- Eric Tostrud
- July 23, 2026
Background
Bryant Duane Griffin filed a prisoner complaint against Judge Joan Ericksen, Lisa Kirkpatrick, whom the opinion identifies as the assistant United States attorney who prosecuted him, and the United States. The opinion states that the complaint misspelled the last names of Judge Ericksen and Ms. Kirkpatrick and uses the corrected spellings.
Griffin was indicted in May 2012 for being a felon in possession of a firearm. A jury found him guilty, and Judge Ericksen sentenced him to 240 months’ imprisonment. The opinion states that Griffin was incarcerated at the United States Prison in Beaumont, Texas when he filed this action.
Claims and Analysis
Griffin challenged the legality of his conviction and sentence. He argued that it was improper for Kirkpatrick to request, and for Judge Ericksen to impose, an enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act. He also alleged that Kirkpatrick and Judge Ericksen violated his Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial trial. He sought immediate release.
The court explained that a federal prisoner generally must challenge the validity of a federal conviction or sentence by filing a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court. The court concluded that Griffin could not use an ordinary civil action to raise these challenges.
The court considered whether to treat the complaint as a motion under § 2255. It declined to recommend that course because Griffin had already filed a § 2255 motion in his criminal case, and that motion had been denied. The court therefore stated that converting this action into another § 2255 motion would serve no purpose.
Recommended Disposition
Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard recommended that the action be dismissed with prejudice. She also recommended that Griffin’s application to proceed in the district court without prepaying fees or costs be denied as moot. In addition, she recommended directing the institution holding Griffin to collect and remit monthly payments toward the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
The document is a report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court. The notice states that it is not directly appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that a party may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.