Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 7, 2022

Griffin v. Warden-A.M.K.C.

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-06302
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Griffin v. Warden-A.M.K.C., Judge Swain dismissed Griffin’s Section 2241 petition without prejudice after he failed to file the required amended petition.

Who this affects

Jeremiah Jerome Griffin’s Section 2241 petition was dismissed without prejudice, and he was denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

What happened

In Griffin v. Warden-A.M.K.C., Jeremiah Jerome Griffin asked the court for relief under Section 2241, a federal law allowing certain challenges to custody. The court had ordered him to file an amended petition showing that he had exhausted his state-court remedies.

Griffin did not file the amended petition within the required 60 days and did not otherwise contact the court. The court’s earlier order had warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the petition without prejudice. The court also said no certificate of appealability would issue, denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Griffin v. Warden-A.M.K.C. · No. 1:22-cv-06302
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Dec. 7, 2022

Background

Jeremiah Jerome Griffin filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure for challenging certain forms of custody. In an order dated July 29, 2022, the court directed Griffin to file an amended petition within 60 days. The amended petition had to show that Griffin had exhausted his state-court remedies, meaning that he had first pursued available relief in state court. The court warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal.

What the Court Did

Griffin did not file the required amended petition and did not otherwise communicate with the court. The court therefore dismissed the Section 2241 petition without prejudice. That wording means the opinion did not bar a later filing based solely on this dismissal.

The court also determined that the petition, at that time, did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it ordered that no certificate of appealability would issue. A certificate of appealability is a document required for certain appeals involving habeas petitions. The court further certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Finally, the court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.