John Francis Bennett v. United States

Fifth Circuit

John Francis Bennett v. United States

437 F.2d 1210, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12111

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 1, 1971

Docket30719_1

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 437 F.2d 1210 (John Francis Bennett v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John Francis Bennett v. United States, 437 F.2d 1210, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12111 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

*1211 PER CURIAM:

Bennett appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus in which he sought to obtain free copies of his trial transcript and all other court documents pertaining to his conviction. We affirm. 1

Although the appellant has no appeal or motion for collateral relief pending in any court, he asserts that as an indigent he is entitled to his own copy of his record in order to prepare a petition for post-conviction relief.

We do not agree with this contention. To the contrary, we have consistently held that a federal prisoner has no absolute right to copies of court records to search for possible defects, merely because of his status as an indigent. Skinner v. United States, 5th Cir. 1970, 434 F.2d 1036 [1970]; Walker v. United States, 5th Cir. 1970, 424 F.2d 278; Harless v. United States, 5th Cir. 1964, 329 F.2d 397.

In the recent case of Wade v. Wilson, 1970, 396 U.S. 282, 90 S.Ct. 501, 24 L.Ed.2d 470, cited by appellant, the Supreme Court indicated that under “special circumstances” where state laws and procedure entitled the indigent to have access to his transcript, as on direct appeal, he can not thereafter be denied the right to borrow an existing transcript for the purpose of framing a petition collaterally attacking his conviction. No such “special circumstances” are alleged in the instant case, nor does the appellant allege that he is being unlawfully deprived of borrowed copies of the records and files in his case. We therefore perceive no compelling reason militating in favor of a departure from this court’s previous decisions, supra. See Lucas v. United States, 6th Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 683.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 9(c) (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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*1211 PER CURIAM:

Bennett appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus in which he sought to obtain free copies of his trial transcript and all other court documents pertaining to his conviction. We affirm. 1

Although the appellant has no appeal or motion for collateral relief pending in any court, he asserts that as an indigent he is entitled to his own copy of his record in order to prepare a petition for post-conviction relief.

We do not agree with this contention. To the contrary, we have consistently held that a federal prisoner has no absolute right to copies of court records to search for possible defects, merely because of his status as an indigent. Skinner v. United States, 5th Cir. 1970, 434 F.2d 1036 [1970]; Walker v. United States, 5th Cir. 1970, 424 F.2d 278; Harless v. United States, 5th Cir. 1964, 329 F.2d 397.

In the recent case of Wade v. Wilson, 1970, 396 U.S. 282, 90 S.Ct. 501, 24 L.Ed.2d 470, cited by appellant, the Supreme Court indicated that under “special circumstances” where state laws and procedure entitled the indigent to have access to his transcript, as on direct appeal, he can not thereafter be denied the right to borrow an existing transcript for the purpose of framing a petition collaterally attacking his conviction. No such “special circumstances” are alleged in the instant case, nor does the appellant allege that he is being unlawfully deprived of borrowed copies of the records and files in his case. We therefore perceive no compelling reason militating in favor of a departure from this court’s previous decisions, supra. See Lucas v. United States, 6th Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 683.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 9(c) (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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

437 F.2d 1210, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-francis-bennett-v-united-states-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack