IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
April 20, 2006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
VON EASLEY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gilbert, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Easley's Motion for Production of Sentencing Transcripts (Doc. 51). For the following reasons, this motion will be DENIED.
At the outset, it is important to note that transcripts of Easley's sentencing have not been prepared. Easley has a right to a transcript under limited circumstances. This right is dependent upon: (1) whether he can establish that he is indigent, and (2) whether the transcript is needed to decide an issue presented by a pending and non-frivolous action. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). These requirements do not violate the Constitution. See United States v. McCollum, 426 U.S. 317 (1976).
In this case, Easley has no pending matter before this Court. This Court, therefore, is unable to certify that the petitioner is pursuing a matter that is not frivolous or that transcripts are needed to decide the issue or issues presented by such a matter. United States v. Hovarth, 157 F.3d 131, 132 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (motion for free transcript not ripe until filing of § 2255 challenge to sentence); Chapman v. United States, 55 F.3d 390, 390-91 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (denial of transcript justified prior to filing of § 2255 challenge to sentence). If, at some point, the defendant should have an action pending before this Court, he may resubmit his request for free transcripts. At such time, the defendant will have the burden to establish (1) that he is indigent (such as by submitting an affidavit and a record of his prison trust fund account for the last six-months), and (2) that the transcripts are needed to decide a pending non-frivolous motion.
Easley's motion (Doc. 51) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J. PHIL GILBERT U.S. District Judge
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.