Roy Douglas v. Lamoyne Green, Superintendent Marion Correctional Institution, the State of Ohio

Sixth Circuit

Roy Douglas v. Lamoyne Green, Superintendent Marion Correctional Institution, the State of Ohio

327 F.2d 661, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6338

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 18, 1964

Docket15716_1

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 327 F.2d 661 (Roy Douglas v. Lamoyne Green, Superintendent Marion Correctional Institution, the State of Ohio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roy Douglas v. Lamoyne Green, Superintendent Marion Correctional Institution, the State of Ohio, 327 F.2d 661, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6338 (6th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this Declaratory Judgment action filed by appellant in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Toledo, Ohio, the District Judge sustained ap-pellees’ motion to dismiss, from which order this appeal was taken. The original record was filed with the Clerk of this Court on January 14, 1964.

Appellant filed a motion in this Court on January 28, 1964, that the Clerk of the District Court be required to issue to appellant photostatic copies of all the papers sent to this Court or that he be transported under guard to Toledo, Ohio, for the purpose of copying “certain necessary papers.” The motion states that the District Clerk has denied appellant’s request to supply him “with copies of the necessary records.”

The statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis, Section 1915(a), Title 28 United States Code, does not include the right to obtain copies of court orders without payment therefor. Hullom v. Kent, 262 F.2d 862, C.A. 6th, and cases cited therein. Section 753(f), Title 28 United States Code, deals with a copy of the transcript of evidence at Government expense, not with a copy of the record.

The motion does not specify what are-the so-called “necessary papers” or why-appellant needs such copies. He necessarily knows what he alleged in his complaint, even if he did not retain a copy.. No evidence was heard in the District. Court. The District Judge wrote an, opinion in sustaining appellees’ motion, to dismiss, a copy of which no doubt was-mailed to appellant at the time of the, ruling. See: Johnson v. United States, 352 U.S. 565, 77 S.Ct. 550,1 L.Ed.2d 593; Miller v. United States, 317 U.S. 192, 198, 63 S.Ct. 187, 87 L.Ed. 179.

In the absence of a more specific-statement of what papers he seeks copies, of, and a showing of the need for such, copies, the motion is denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this Declaratory Judgment action filed by appellant in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Toledo, Ohio, the District Judge sustained ap-pellees’ motion to dismiss, from which order this appeal was taken. The original record was filed with the Clerk of this Court on January 14, 1964.

Appellant filed a motion in this Court on January 28, 1964, that the Clerk of the District Court be required to issue to appellant photostatic copies of all the papers sent to this Court or that he be transported under guard to Toledo, Ohio, for the purpose of copying “certain necessary papers.” The motion states that the District Clerk has denied appellant’s request to supply him “with copies of the necessary records.”

The statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis, Section 1915(a), Title 28 United States Code, does not include the right to obtain copies of court orders without payment therefor. Hullom v. Kent, 262 F.2d 862, C.A. 6th, and cases cited therein. Section 753(f), Title 28 United States Code, deals with a copy of the transcript of evidence at Government expense, not with a copy of the record.

The motion does not specify what are-the so-called “necessary papers” or why-appellant needs such copies. He necessarily knows what he alleged in his complaint, even if he did not retain a copy.. No evidence was heard in the District. Court. The District Judge wrote an, opinion in sustaining appellees’ motion, to dismiss, a copy of which no doubt was-mailed to appellant at the time of the, ruling. See: Johnson v. United States, 352 U.S. 565, 77 S.Ct. 550,1 L.Ed.2d 593; Miller v. United States, 317 U.S. 192, 198, 63 S.Ct. 187, 87 L.Ed. 179.

In the absence of a more specific-statement of what papers he seeks copies, of, and a showing of the need for such, copies, the motion is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

327 F.2d 661, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-douglas-v-lamoyne-green-superintendent-marion-correctional-ca6-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack