Griggs v. Fleming

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
F I L E D
February 13, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-10727
Summary Calendar
STEVEN M. GRIGGS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
L.E. FLEMING, Warden, Federal
Medical Center-Fort Worth,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:03-CV-00199
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Stephen M. Griggs, federal prisoner # 22276-044, challenges
the dismissal for failure to state a claim of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 habeas petition seeking immediate release, renewing his
argument that President Clinton intended to grant him clemency.
He urges that, because President Clinton allegedly wrote a note
evidencing an intent to pardon him, the fact that he was not
actually pardoned shows that the clemency process was somehow

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-10727
-2-
adulterated, which violated his constitutional rights,
specifically, his right to due process. Griggs additionally
contends that further fact finding is required to determine why
the President’s intention was frustrated and urges that dismissal
prior to discovery was thus inappropriate.
This court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal
of a § 2241 petition on the pleadings. See Kinder v. Purdy,
222 F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 2000). To obtain federal habeas
relief, a petitioner must show a federal constitutional
violation. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Griggs has made no such
showing. As he apparently concedes, Griggs has not actually
received a Presidential pardon, and he has no constitutional
right to such pardon. See Connecticut Bd. of Pardons v.
Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458, 464-67 (1981); see also 28 C.F.R. § 1.11.
Because Griggs had no constitutional right to a Presidential
pardon, he was not entitled to due process in connection with
the procedure by which his petition for a pardon was considered.
See id. Griggs cites no relevant authority to the contrary.
His argument that discovery was required prior to dismissal is
unpersuasive because the issue on which he sought discovery, the
reason why President Clinton did not pardon him, is irrelevant.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --