United States v. Cheddie Griffin

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-10881

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHEDDIE LAMAR GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:08-cr-00027-RAL-TGW-1

____________________

Before BRANCH, LUCK, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Cheddie Lamar Griffin, a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s January 3, 2025, order denying his

2

2 Opinion of the Court 25-10881

motion to amend his original 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We remanded the case to the district court for consideration of a construed motion for relief under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). On remand, the district court denied the motion.

Habeas corpus proceedings are governed by the civil rules.

See Sanders v. United States, 113 F.3d 184, 186 n.1 (11th Cir. 1997) (“An appeal from an order denying relief under . . . § 2255 is governed by [Rule 4(a)].”); United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (“[P]roceedings under § 2255 are not proceedings in the original criminal prosecution; rather, the filing of a [§ 2255] motion . . . is akin to initiating an independent civil suit.”). In civil cases, the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement . Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010).

Here, Griffin was required to file a notice of appeal by March 4, 2025. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b)(1) (providing that, in civil cases where the United States is a party, a notice must be filed within 60 days after the entry of the challenged ruling); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B)(i) (same); Sanders, 113 F.3d at 186 n.1; Jordan, 915 F.2d at 628. However, his notice is not deemed filed until March 10, 2025. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) (describing the prison mailbox rule); Houston , 487 U.S. at 276 (explaining that, under the rule, a notice mailed by a pro se prisoner through a prison mail system is deemed filed on the date he delivered it to prison authorities for mailing). As the district court denied Griffin’s construed motion to reopen the appeal period, his appeal is untimely.

3

25-10881 Opinion of the Court 3

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction . See Green, 606 F.3d at 1300. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.