Murray v. United States Of America

Filing 30

ORDER denying 29 Motion copies. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 5/18/17. (cmr)

IN THE

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT

OF

COURT

FOR THE

GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

ANTONIO LAMONT MURRAY,

*

Petitioner,

*
*

CV

v.

*

(Formerly CR 612-0 05)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

614-128

*
•

Respondent.

*

ORDER

Petitioner
vacate,

Antonio

Lamont

Murray

filed

a

motion

set aside or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C.

on December 29,

2014.

to

§ 2255

Petitioner thoroughly and adequately

represented himself in the district court, filing a memorandum
in support of his petition and a reply brief.
2015, however,

On November 12,

the United States Magistrate Judge issued a

Report and Recommendation to deny his petition on the merits.
Over Petitioner's objections,

this Court adopted the Report

and Recommendation on January 19, 2016, and closed the case.

Petitioner

appealed

and moved

for

Appealability with the Eleventh Circuit.

a

Certificate

of

Petitioner again

adequately represented himself as evidenced by his coherent
motion for a Certificate of Appealability, which resulted in

a fifteen-page opinion by the Honorable Beverly B. Martin

denying the motion on the merits.

Recently,

the Eleventh

Circuit has granted Petitioner a sixty-day extension within
which to file a motion for reconsideration of Judge Martin's
decision.

Presently before this Court is Petitioner's request for
a

copy

of

memorandum

his

in

§

2255

support)

motion

and of

(13

the

pages

plus

Government's

brief (46 pages (140 pages including exhibits)).
explains that he

lost these documents

a

16-page

responsive

Petitioner

in transport between

prisons.

The Court is not unsympathetic to the problems facing a

habeas litigant.

Nevertheless, an indigent litigant is not

entitled to free copies of documents unless they are necessary

to decide an issue presented by suit or appeal.

See 28 U.S.C.

§ 753(f)1 (A defendant may receive a free transcript only if
the court "certifies that the suit or appeal is not frivolous

and

that

the

transcript

is

needed

presented by the suit or appeal.");
Wainwricrht, 794 F.2d 1516,

1

1518

Although Defendant's

to

the

issue

see also Jefferies v.

(11th Cir.

request

decide

1986)

("Denial of

for pleadings

- not

transcripts - is not expressly governed by § 753(f),

the

standard set forth in § 753(f) may be applied.
Similarly,
under 28 U.S.C. § 2250, the Court may direct the Clerk to

provide copies of documents or parts of the record at Court

expense, but a petitioner must demonstrate a particularized
need in relation to his habeas claims.
See Convington v.
United States, 2012 WL 3835085, at: *i (M.D. Fla. Sept. 4,
2012) .

a free transcript to an indigent defendant is unconstitutional
only where the transcript is valuable to the defense and no
functional alternatives exist."); United States v. Mitchell,
2008 WL 824226,

defendant
course,

is

at *1

"not

(M.D.

Fla.

statutorily

to receive a copy of

post-appeal.").

Mar.

26,

2008)

authorized,

as

(A criminal

a

matter

of

. . . documents free of charge

Here, Petitioner has already demonstrated his

ability to adequately convey his habeas claims to this Court
and the

these

Eleventh Circuit,

documents

reconsideration

are
to

Eleventh Circuit has

and he

necessary
the
the

has

to

Eleventh
§

not

demonstrated that

present

his

Circuit.

motion

Moreover,

for
the

2255 motion and the Government's

response in its case file.
In

short,

Defendant's

request

is

outside

of

the

acceptable practices of this Court in providing free copies of
documents, particularly where the documents are lengthy and
unnecessary.
Clerk's

Defendant may always make arrangements with the

office

to

pay

for

the

requested

documents.

Accordingly, Defendant's request (doc. 272) is DENIED,

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this
May,

/ Cr^ day of

2017.

J. R^DM^HAKL, CHIEF JUDGE
uniteVtbi?ates DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA