United States v. Hastings, Crim. No. 11-25 (1) (RHK/FLN)
Decision Date | 09 May 2014 |
Docket Number | Crim. No. 11-25 (1) (RHK/FLN) |
Parties | United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Robert Ellis Hastings, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's self-styled submission entitled "Motion Requesting Plea Transcripts and List of Government Wittness [sic] that Testified at Motion Hearing." (Docket No. 99). Defendant is seeking free copies of various transcripts and other court records, which he wants to use in connection with an appeal that he is contemplating.1 However, Defendant has not shown any sustainable reason to grant him the free transcripts and court records he is seeking. Therefore, Defendant's motion will be DENIED.
However, this statute does not apply here, because Defendant has not shown that the Court of Appeals has required him to produce any part of the record for an appeal. Moreover, even if this statute were applicable, it would not support Defendant's request for transcripts for his own personal use, because the statute is intended to aid the Court of Appeals, not individual litigants. See Schwartz v. Interpol, Office of Information and Privacy, Nos. 94-411, 94-4142 (10th Cir.) 1995 WL 94664 (unpublished opinion) *2 ("[a]lthough this statute thus relieves the litigant of the cost of preparing the record on appeal, it does not grant the court the authority to provide an indigent litigant with certified copies of all documents in the record"), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1146 (1995); see also Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661, 662 (6th Cir. 1964) (per curiam) (); Hullom v. Kent, 262 F.2d 862, 863 (6th Cir. 1959) (per curiam) (same).
Section 753(f) authorizes a court to provide free transcripts only if the party requesting the transcripts demonstrates that some specific transcript is necessary to resolve a "substantial question." There must be a persuasive showing of a "particular need" for some specific transcript(s) for somecritical and well substantiated purpose. Harvey v. Andrist, 754 F.2d 569, 571 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1126 (1985). See also Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 289 (5th Cir. 1997) (); Nolt v. Strausser, 761 F.Supp. 18, 19 (E.D.Pa. 1990) ( ). "Conclusory allegations in support of a request for free transcripts do not satisfy these requirements." Amadasu v. Mercy Franciscan Hosp., 515 F.3d 528, 530 (6th Cir. 2008). See also Douglas, 327 F.2d at 662 ().
In this case, Defendant cannot be granted free transcripts under § 753(f), because he has not shown that he needs any particular transcript(s) for any specific, non-frivolous purpose. Defendant simply contends that he wants some unidentified transcripts so he pursue an appeal that he apparently is contemplating. If this type of vague assertion were sufficient, then any indigent litigant could obtain free copies of any transcript just by asking. That is not what § 753(f) provides. Because Defendant has failed to show that h...
To continue reading
Request your trial