IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 533

) (04 CR 531)

RANDY GRIFFIN, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Following the return of a 2004 indictment that charged him

with multiple currency exchange robberies, Randy Griffin

(“Griffin”) was convicted in a jury trial before this Court’s

then colleague, Honorable David Coar, who has since left the

bench. As a result of Griffin’s current (and second) 28 U.S.C.

§2255 motion to vacate his conviction, the matter has been 1

assigned at random to this Court’s calendar.2

This Court has since conducted the preliminary review called

for by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for

the United States District Courts (“Section 2255 Rules”). It

finds that on Griffin’s own allegations the motion must be denied

on more than one ground.

 All further references to Title 28’s provisions will 1

simply take the form “Section--.”

 Griffin has tendered only the handprinted original of 2

that motion, without providing the required copies (1) for

service on the United States Attorney’s office and (2) to serve

as this Court’s chambers copy. That deficiency need not be

cured, however, because the motion must be denied out of hand for

the reasons hereafter stated in the text.

Case: 1:12-cv-00533 Document #: 5 Filed: 02/01/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:30
In that respect Griffin’s submission is somewhat difficult

to follow. Here is what he says (copied verbatim) at page 3,

toward the end of his discussion of both Section 2255 generally

and the one-year limitation period prescribed by Section

2255(f)(1):

Petitioner’s Judgement of conviction became final after

petitioner’s C.O.A. was Denied on October 20, 2010

Therefore, petitioner’s initial 28 U.S.C. 2255 is

timely. At this point, petitioner’s only realistic

opportunity to obtain fair and substantial justice

regarding his conviction, sentence, and appellant

rights, is through this instant petition.

Although Griffin says nothing else about the earlier Section

2255 motion, this Court has obtained copies of the relevant

docket printout in Case No. 08 C 6934 (his first Section 2255

motion), and of our Court of Appeals’ October 19, 2010

unpublished order regarding Griffin’s notice of appeal from Judge

Coar’s denial of that motion. Here is that order in Court of

Appeals Case No. 10-2414:

Randy Griffin has filed a notice of appeal from the

denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. §2255 and an

application for a certificate of appealability. This

court has reviewed the final order of the district

court and the record on appeal. We find no substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See

28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2).

Accordingly, the request for a certificate of

appealability is DENIED. Griffin’s motion to proceed

in forma pauperis is DENIED.

Because Griffin has thus struck out once before in his

effort to obtain Section 2255 relief, the current motion cannot

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00533 Document #: 5 Filed: 02/01/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:31
go forward without a prior authorization by the Court of Appeals

(see Section 2244(b)). That alone consigns the current motion to

the deep six.

But even were that not the case, the current motion must be

denied as untimely. As stated earlier, the latest action on

Griffin’s rejected Section 2255 motion took place back in 2010.3

Even if Griffin were right in asserting that the denial of the

COA had been “the date on which the judgment of conviction

becomes final” (Section 2255(f)(1))(a position that really makes

no sense, for the conviction itself had become final a good deal

earlier in time), Griffin did not transmit the current motion

until at least January 19, 2012. So the motion is out of time 4

in all events.

It is thus an understatement to say (to quote Section 2255

Rule 4(b)) that “it plainly appears from the motion, any attached

exhibits and the record of prior proceedings that the moving

party is not entitled to relief.” And that being so, that same

Rule mandates that this Court dismiss the motion, and it so

 As the docket reflects, the mandate stemming from the 3

Court of Appeals’ October 19, 2010 denial of a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) issued on December 13, 2010.

 That is the date he lists as his having signed the 4

document, so that its selection gives him the benefit of the

doubt under the “mailbox rule” (Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266

(1988)).

3

Case: 1:12-cv-00533 Document #: 5 Filed: 02/01/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:32
orders.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: February 1, 2012

4

Case: 1:12-cv-00533 Document #: 5 Filed: 02/01/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:33