New York Criminal Lawyer Blog
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is a legal procedure that allows a person who has been convicted of a crime and is in custody to challenge the legality of that conviction or sentence in federal court. Habeas corpus petitions often raise claims that constitutional rights were violated during the criminal proceedings. However, federal habeas cases are governed by strict procedural rules and filing deadlines. Missing one of those deadlines can prevent a court from reviewing the merits of a prisoner’s claims.
In Griffin v. LaManna, No. 24-3009 (2d Cir. 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered whether a state prisoner could appeal the denial of a motion seeking additional time to file an appeal in a habeas corpus case without first obtaining a certificate of appealability. The court also addressed whether the prisoner’s attorney had demonstrated excusable neglect sufficient to justify missing the original appeal deadline.
Background Facts
Gary Griffin is a New York state prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole following convictions for first-degree murder, conspiracy, intimidation of a victim or witness, tampering with a witness, criminal possession of a weapon, and criminal facilitation.
Griffin filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions. On April 30, 2024, the district court denied the petition on the merits and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), Griffin had thirty days to file a notice of appeal. His deadline was May 30, 2024. He did not meet that deadline. Instead, on June 21, 2024, he filed a notice of appeal along with a motion under Rule 4(a)(5) seeking an extension of time.
In support of the motion, Griffin argued that his attorney did not learn of the district court’s decision immediately because staff members responsible for monitoring court filings were absent from the office. Counsel also asserted that he mistakenly believed Griffin had already received a copy of the decision and that communication difficulties prevented him from contacting Griffin sooner to discuss whether an appeal should be filed.
The district court denied the motion, finding that the circumstances described by counsel amounted to ordinary attorney error rather than excusable neglect. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Griffin then appealed to the Second Circuit.
Issue
Must a habeas petitioner obtain a certificate of appealability before appealing the denial of a Rule 4(a)(5) motion seeking an extension of time to file an appeal?
Holding
Yes. The Second Circuit held that a certificate of appealability is required before a habeas petitioner may appeal the denial of a Rule 4(a)(5) motion. The court further held that Griffin was not entitled to a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not debate whether the district court properly denied his motion for an extension of time. As a result, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Rationale
The court began by examining 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A), which provides that a certificate of appealability is required before a habeas petitioner may appeal from a final order in a habeas proceeding. The court noted that it had previously reached a similar conclusion in Eltayib v. United States, holding that a certificate of appealability was required to appeal the denial of a Rule 4(a)(6) motion.
Griffin argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Harbison v. Bell changed the law and eliminated the certificate requirement in situations involving procedural motions. The Second Circuit disagreed.
According to the court, Harbison created a limited exception for appeals involving matters entirely collateral to the habeas proceeding, such as a request for expanded representation by counsel. By contrast, a Rule 4(a)(5) motion directly affects whether a petitioner may continue litigating the habeas case on appeal. Because the denial of such a motion effectively ends the petitioner’s ability to seek appellate review, it constitutes a final order requiring a certificate of appealability.
The court emphasized that the certificate requirement serves an important gatekeeping function. Congress adopted the requirement to prevent appellate courts from expending resources on habeas appeals that lack arguable merit. Requiring a certificate before reviewing a Rule 4(a)(5) denial serves that purpose because a successful appeal could revive the underlying habeas proceeding.
The court next considered whether Griffin was entitled to a certificate of appealability. To obtain one, he was required to show that reasonable jurists could debate whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 4(a)(5) motion.
The court concluded that Griffin failed to make that showing.
Rule 4(a)(5) permits an extension of time only when the moving party demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause. Courts evaluate excusable neglect using factors established by the Supreme Court in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership. Those factors include prejudice, the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and whether the party acted in good faith.
The Second Circuit noted that the reason for the delay is generally the most important factor.
The court found that Griffin’s explanations amounted to ordinary attorney mistakes. Staffing issues, misunderstandings within a law office, and failures to promptly learn of a court decision are problems that fall within an attorney’s control. The court explained that attorney inadvertence generally does not constitute excusable neglect absent extraordinary circumstances.
The court also rejected the argument that difficulties communicating with Griffin justified the delay. According to the court, counsel could have protected Griffin’s rights by filing a notice of appeal while continuing efforts to consult with him. The court noted that filing a protective notice of appeal is a common practice when deadlines are approaching.
Finally, the court rejected Griffin’s claim that the district court failed to consider all of the relevant factors. The district court expressly identified each of the Pioneer factors and properly focused on the reason for the delay, which Second Circuit precedent treats as the most significant consideration.
Because the district court acted within its discretion, the Second Circuit concluded that reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the ruling. As a result, Griffin was not entitled to a certificate of appealability.
Conclusion
The decision serves as a reminder that federal habeas proceedings are governed by strict procedural requirements. Missing a filing deadline can prevent a petitioner from obtaining appellate review, even when substantial constitutional issues are involved. If you are pursuing a federal habeas corpus petition or considering an appeal from a criminal conviction, it is important to consult an experienced New York criminal defense lawyer. A lawyer can help ensure that all procedural requirements are satisfied and that important appellate rights are protected.