Mose Skinner v. United States

434 F.2d 1036, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6137
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedDecember 3, 1970
Docket30543
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 434 F.2d 1036 (Mose Skinner 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
Mose Skinner v. United States, 434 F.2d 1036, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6137 (5th Cir. 1970).

Opinion

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.

1

. 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.

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

Related

SLUTZKER v. CAPOZZA
W.D. Pennsylvania, 2021
United States v. Juan Alejandro Rodriguez Cuya
964 F.3d 969 (Eleventh Circuit, 2020)
United States v. Richard James Adamson, Jr.
681 F. App'x 824 (Eleventh Circuit, 2017)
United States v. Thomas Aloysius Warmus
151 F. App'x 783 (Eleventh Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Estupinan-Paredes
967 F. Supp. 39 (D. Puerto Rico, 1997)
United States v. Guzman
Fifth Circuit, 1996
United States v. Groce
838 F. Supp. 411 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1993)
United States v. Chambers
788 F. Supp. 334 (E.D. Michigan, 1992)
United States v. Houghton
388 F. Supp. 773 (N.D. Texas, 1975)
United States v. Jay Herrera
474 F.2d 1049 (Fifth Circuit, 1973)
Dedorise Daniel Doyal v. United States
456 F.2d 1292 (Fifth Circuit, 1972)
United States v. Harry William Theriault
447 F.2d 1361 (Fifth Circuit, 1971)
Charles Dwane Cowan v. United States
445 F.2d 855 (Fifth Circuit, 1971)
John Francis Bennett v. United States
437 F.2d 1210 (Fifth Circuit, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
434 F.2d 1036, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mose-skinner-v-united-states-ca5-1970.