United States District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Eastern Division
MACK T. TRANSOU, Plaintiff,
WAYNE BRANDON, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PRO SE MOTIONS
JAMES D. TODD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, pro se, has moved the court for a copy of the orders in this matter at Government expense [DE# 55] and for permission to proceed in forma pauperis [DE# 54]. The motions are DENIED.
Judgment was entered against Plaintiff on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition on March 17, 2008. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant Plaintiff’s motion for a certificate of appealability and denied his motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis on October 1, 2008.
Before the court can order the relief sought by Plaintiff, he must have a pending matter; he is not entitled to the requested documents merely to “go fishing.” Compare Ketcherside v. United States, 317 F.2d 807 (6th Cir. 1963) (Federal prisoner is not entitled to obtain transcript of his trial at Government expense for purpose of preparing § 2255 motion when there is no such motion pending) with United States v. West, No. 93-5525, 1993 WL 375797 (6th Cir. Sept. 23, 1993) (“The district court advised West that he must first file his § 2255 motion to vacate sentence before he is entitled to a transcript. We need not decide at this time whether a motion to vacate sentence must be pending in the district court before a transcript request may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). West has not otherwise shown that he has met the requirements of § 753(f) or that special circumstances were present.”) and Sistrunk v. United States, 992 F.2d 258 (10th Cir. 1993) (“In determining whether a defendant has complied with § 753(f), some courts have held that the actual filing of a habeas petition is a necessary prerequisite. We need not decide here whether to adopt this interpretation of § 753(f).”)
Because Plaintiff currently has nothing pending in the federal court system, ...