Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10197/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10197-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney W. Chandler
Appellee
Rodger Dale Griggs
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10197

Summary Calendar

RODGER DALE GRIGGS,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

RODNEY W. CHANDLER, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution-Fort 

Worth,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CV-133

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Rodger Dale Griggs, federal prisoner # 07572-040, appeals the dismissal 

of a petition that the district court construed as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,

and dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Griggs contends that he 

meant to file a civil complaint requesting a default judgment, and the district 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 1, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10197 Document: 00513402379 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2016
No. 15-10197

2

court erroneously construed his petition as a collateral attack on his conviction. 

He also has moved for a default judgment. 

The district court reasonably could have concluded that Griggs’s petition 

arose under § 2241. Griggs’s expressly raised claims that attacked the legality 

of his conviction (e.g., whether his indictment should be dismissed as invalid, 

whether the court of conviction had jurisdiction, whether he should be released

from prison because he was wrongly convicted) and, therefore, were cognizable 

in a federal habeas petition. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 

2000). The district court could not construe the petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

motion because Griggs filed prior § 2255 motions attacking his conviction, and 

a § 2255 motion can be reviewed only in the sentencing court, i.e., the Northern 

District of Indiana. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 895 n.3

(5th Cir. 2001); § 2255(a), (h). The district court properly considered whether 

Griggs could assert his claims under § 2241 by satisfying the savings clause of 

§ 2255(e), see Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904, and found that he had not made 

the required showing. Griggs has not asserted that he can satisfy the savings 

clause or otherwise addressed the district court’s reasoning and, thus, he has 

not shown that the district court’s conclusion was incorrect. See Brinkmann v. 

Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). His 

characterization of his filing as a civil complaint is irrelevant and, based upon 

the nature of the claims raised, inaccurate. See Tolliver, 211 F.3d at 877-78.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Griggs’s 

motion for a default judgment is DENIED.

 Case: 15-10197 Document: 00513402379 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2016