From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kirby v. Sutton

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jan 18, 1971
436 F.2d 1082 (5th Cir. 1971)

Opinion

No. 30701 Summary Calendar.

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409.

January 18, 1971.

Donald L. Kirby, pro se.

Before BELL, AINSWORTH, and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.



The complaint underlying this appeal was brought under the civil rights jurisdiction of the court, 42 U.S.C.A. section 1983, 28 U.S.C.A. section 1343, against a state court reporter to obtain a copy of the transcript of the state trial wherein petitioner, a state prisoner, was convicted. It is alleged that the transcript is needed for study so as to enable petitioner to petition for post-conviction relief.

There was no showing whatever that petitioner had exhausted available post-conviction remedies in the Texas State Courts. The transcript question presented is properly a part of such state post-conviction remedy, being ancillary thereto.

We treat the petition as a petition for the federal writ of habeas corpus and dismiss for failure to exhaust available state remedies. 28 U.S.C.A. section 2254; Stepp v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1968, 398 F.2d 814; Texas v. Payton, 5 Cir., 1968, 390 F.2d 261. Compare the exhaustion efforts in Wade v. Wilson, 1970, 396 U.S. 282, 90 S.Ct. 501, 24 L.Ed.2d 470.

The judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint is affirmed.


Summaries of

Kirby v. Sutton

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jan 18, 1971
436 F.2d 1082 (5th Cir. 1971)
Case details for

Kirby v. Sutton

Case Details

Full title:Donald Lee KIRBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill S. SUTTON, Court Reporter…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jan 18, 1971

Citations

436 F.2d 1082 (5th Cir. 1971)

Citing Cases

Scruggs v. Moellering

Scruggs does not challenge his conviction or sentence directly; but as he wants an injunction under section…

Jackson v. Wainwright

The district court was not in error in denying a request by appellant to obtain a copy of his trial…