Mose Skinner v. United States
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision. The 15 that cite it most often are listed here.
- United States v. Harry William Theriault (5th Cir. 1971)
- SLUTZKER v. CAPOZZA (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 2021)
- United States v. Juan Alejandro Rodriguez Cuya (11th Cir. 2020)
- United States v. Richard James Adamson, Jr. (11th Cir. 2017)
- United States v. Thomas Aloysius Warmus (11th Cir. 2005)
- United States v. Estupinan-Paredes (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1997)
- United States v. Guzman (5th Cir. 1996)
- United States v. Groce (District Court, E.D. Wisconsin 1993)
- United States v. Chambers (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1992)
- United States v. Houghton (District Court, N.D. Texas 1975)
- United States v. Jay Herrera (5th Cir. 1973)
- Dedorise Daniel Doyal v. United States (5th Cir. 1972)
- John Francis Bennett v. United States (5th Cir. 1971)
- Bert M. Colbert v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections (5th Cir. 1971)
- Charles Dwane Cowan v. United States (5th Cir. 1971)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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.
. 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.