MOSE SKINNER, PETITIONER-APPELLANT
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A federal prisoner is not entitled to free copies of court records to search for potential sentencing errors without demonstrating specific grounds for such a motion.
Appellant, a federal prisoner, requested free copies of his trial transcript and other records to frame a motion to vacate his sentence. He did not sp…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Collateral Attack On Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from the district court’s denial of the appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus. We affirm.1
Appellant has made a blanket request for free copies of his trial transcript and other records in his case, for the purpose of framing a motion to vacate his sentence under § 2255. He does not advert to any possible defects in his conviction which the documents will show, but merely claims that as an indigent he has a right to be furnished with all the records and files pertaining to his conviction.
We have consistently held that where a federal prisoner has not attempted to file a petition collaterally attacking his conviction, he is not entitled to obtain copies of court records at the government’s expense under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to search the record for possible error. Walker v. United States, 5th Cir. 1970, 424 F. 2d 278; Harless v. United States, 5th Cir. 1964, 329 F. 2d 397.
As in Lucas v. United States, 6th Cir. 1970, 423 F. 2d 683, this federal prisoner petitioner is under none of the special circumstances of the California state prisoner in Wade v. Wilson, 396 U.S. 282, 90 S.Ct. 501, 24 L.Ed.2d 470 (1970).
We adhere to our decisions in Walker and Harless, supra.
Affirmed.
. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se ease summarily pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(e) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F. 2d 981.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Cuya, 964 F.3d 969 (11th Cir. 2020)…t for use in a future collateral attack on a conviction where “Brown had no petition for a post conviction remedy pending at the time of his motion and his motion failed to set forth any grounds of attack on his sentence"); Skinner v. United States, 434 F.2d 1036, 1037 (5th Cir. 1970) (“We Cuya does not appear to have appealed from the district court's denial of his motion to toll, because while he mentioned it in his response to a jurisdictional question we posed, he has not plainly and prominently raised…
-
Bennett v. United States, 437 F.2d 1210 (5th Cir. 1971)
-
Cowan v. United States, 445 F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1971)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kimbrough v. Beto, 412 F.2d 981 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Wade v. Wilson, 396 U.S. 282 (U.S. 1970)
- Walker v. United States, 424 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Harless v. United States, 329 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1964)
- Lucas v. United States, 423 F.2d 683 (6th Cir. 1970)