Mose Skinner v. United States
Mose SKINNER, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
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 .
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 18 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.