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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?