Griffin v. Woods

Full title: GERALD GRIFFIN, Movant, v. ROBERT WOODS, Superintendent, Upstate…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Aug 5, 2010

Case No. 08-CV-106 (FB) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 08-CV-106 (FB).

August 5, 2010

For the Petitioner: GERALD GRIFFIN, pro se, 99-A-0113, Attica Correctional Facility, Attica, NY.

For the Respondent: THOMAS M. ROSS, ESQ., Kings County District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FREDERIC BLOCK, District Judge

Gerald Griffin, proceeding pro se, is currently in custody pursuant to a state-court judgment of conviction for depraved-indifference murder. On October 31, 2008, the Court issued a memorandum and order (the "October 31st M O") denying Griffin's petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that the petition was untimely and, in any event, without merit because he was not entitled to a retroactive application of the changes to New York's depraved-indifference murder law.

Griffin subsequently sought relief pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), arguing that the untimeliness of his habeas petition was the result of his attorneys' malpractice. On March 17, 2010, the Court issued a memorandum and order denying Griffin's motion (the "March 17th M O") in accordance with its alternate holding on the merits in the October 31st M O.

Griffin now submits a letter, described as a "motion for Reconsideration," asking the Court to reconsider the March 17th M O. While the basis for this motion is unclear, as best the Court can glean Griffin makes substantively the same argument that he put forth in his Rule 60(b)(6) motion: that his attorneys failed to timely file his habeas petition.

However, as the Court explained in the March 17th M O, the Court would have denied Griffin's habeas petition even if it had been timely filed because Griffin is not entitled to the changes in the standards for depraved-indifference murder under New York law. The New York Court of Appeals has squarely held that those changes do not apply retroactively. See Policano v. Herbert, 7 N.Y. 3d 588, 603 (2006); Henry v. Ricks, 578 F.3d 134, 138 (2d Cir. 2009) (holding that, under Policano, the changes to New York's depraved-indifference murder law "[do] not apply retroactively"). Accordingly, Griffin's letter motion is denied.

SO ORDERED.