Quatrine v. Berghuis
OPINION and ORDER Denying Petitioner's Motion for a Copy of the Entire Court File Free of Cost 72 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
CHARLES QUATRINE, Jr.,
Civil No. 2:10-CV-11603
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR A COPY
OF THE ENTIRE COURT FILE FREE OF COST [Dkt. # 72).
This Court summarily denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on the ground that it was barred by the
statute of limitations contained within 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). See Quatrine
v. Berghuis, No. 2014 WL 793626 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 27, 2014); a’ffd. No.
14-1323, 2016 WL 1457878 (6th Cir. Apr. 12, 2016); cert. den. 137 S.Ct.
Petitioner filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment and a
motion to disqualify this Court, which were denied. Quatrine v. Berghuis,
No. 2:10-CV-11603, 2017 WL 2350060 (E.D. Mich. May 31, 2017).
On August 30, 2017, this Court denied petitioner's motion for release
on bail, the motion to alter or to amend judgment, and a motion to extend
time to file a notice of appeal. [Dkt. # 71].
On September 27, 2017, petitioner, through retained counsel, Gary
D. Straus, filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit. [Dkt. # 74].
Petitioner has filed a motion for a copy of the entire court file, which is
Petitioner requests a copy of the entire court file free of cost, because
he claims that the Michigan Department of Corrections lost his entire
pleadings and legal documents when he was released on parole to a
halfway house. Petitioner further argues that he is unable to view these
documents online because he is not permitted Internet access at the
halfway house. Petitioner claims he needs his various pleadings in order to
perfect his appeal from this Court's denial of his motion on August 30,
The Court denies the motion for a free copy of the court file because
petitioner is not an indigent in that he obviously has sufficient funds to
retain counsel. See e.g. United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079 (3d
Cir. 1971)(District court did not abuse its discretion in denying application
to file petitions of habeas corpus in forma pauperis where it appeared that
petitioners had access to sufficient funds to retain attorneys).
Moreover, a request that by an indigent habeas petitioner that he or
she be furnished a free copy of a transcript of a habeas corpus proceeding
in federal court should be granted only when a need for the transcript has
been demonstrated. See U. S. ex rel. McCode v. Myers, 241 F. Supp. 85,
86 (E.D. Pa. 1965). Petitioner failed to show that it was necessary for him
to have the entire court file furnished to him at government expense.
Petitioner's lawyer has access to the Court's file and will be able to review
any documents that he feels should be reviewed in perfecting petitioner's
appeal. Because Petitioner’s counsel would have access to the entire
court record, petitioner is not entitled to the production of the trial
transcripts to assist him with his appeal. See e.g. Smith v. United States,
421 F.2d 1300, 1301 (6th Cir. 1970).
Based on the foregoing, the “Motion for a Copy of Entire Court File
Free of Cost” [Dkt. # 72] is DENIED.
S/Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: November 7, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record on November 7, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
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?