UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JAY HERRERA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 government-funded transcripts for speculative collateral attacks.
Appellant, an indigent federal prisoner, sought a copy of his trial transcript to search for defects to support a collateral attack on his conviction.…
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 Indigent Prisoner Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The United States moves to have the appeal dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 20.1 We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.2
Appellant filed a motion in the district court seeking to obtain a copy of his trial transcript in order to examine it to prepare an attack on his conviction collaterally. The district court denied the motion on grounds that the transcript is not available for a “fishing expedition.” This appeal followed.
This Court has consistently held that a federal prisoner is not entitled to obtain copies of court records at the government’s expense to search for possible defects merely because he is an indigent. Cowan v. United States, 5th Cir. 1971, 445 F. 2d 855; Brown v. United States, 5th Cir. 1971, 438 F. 2d 1385; Bennett v. United States, 5th Cir. 1971, 437 F. 2d 1210; Skinner v. United States, 5th Cir. 1970, 434 F. 2d 1036. Therefore, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
Appeal dismissed
. If upon the hearing of any interlocutory motion or as a result of a review under Rule 17, it shall appear to the court that the appeal is frivolous and entirely without merit, the appeal will be dismissed without the notice contemplated in Rule 18. See Nevels v. McCall, 5th Cir. 1969, 407 F. 2d 390, and United States v. Minor, 5th Cir. 1971, 444 F. 2d 521.
. It is appropriate to dispose of this case summarily. See Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis, 5th Cir. 1969, 406 F. 2d 1158.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. MacCOLLOM, 426 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1976)
-
Bonner v. Henderson, 517 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1975)
-
United States v. Cuya, 964 F.3d 969 (11th Cir. 2020)…roceedings for the United States District Courts. This limitation also is consistent with the general admonition against allowing federal prisoners to use discovery in habeas proceedings as a fishing expedition. See, e.g., United States v. Herrera, 474 F.2d 1049, 1049 (5th Cir. 1973) (affirming the district court's denial of a defendant's pre-§ 2255 motion to obtain a copy of his trial transcript in order to "examine it to prepare an attack on his conviction collaterally," since "the transcript is not avail…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir. 1969)
- United States v. Minor, 444 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Mose Skinner v. United States, 434 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Bennett v. United States, 437 F.2d 1210 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Cowan v. United States, 445 F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Nevels v. McCALL, 407 F.2d 390 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Brown v. United States, 438 F.2d 1385 (5th Cir. 1971)