Opinion
C/A No. 8:05-cr-00625-GRA-2.
November 6, 2006
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's request for a transcript of his sentencing hearing, filed on November 1, 2006.
This Court is required to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 (1980), Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 970 (1978). A federal district court is also charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972).
If Petitioner wishes to obtain copies of transcripts at the expense of the government, he must properly demonstrate that he is an indigent litigant and show a particularized need for the documents. See Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 228; Hardy v. United States, 375 U.S. 277, 282 (1963); Jones v. Superintendent, Virginia State Farm, 460 F.2d 150, 152-53 (4th Cir. 1972). "It is settled in this circuit that `an indigent is not entitled to a transcript at government expense without a showing of the need, merely to comb the record in the hope of discovering some flaw.'" Jones, 460 F.2d at 152 (quoting United States v. Glass, 317 F.2d 200, 202 (4th Cir. 1963)). Petitioner has not shown that he is an indigent litigant and has not demonstrated any particularized or substantial need for the transcripts.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for a transcript be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.