Opinion
CASE NO. 90-CR-1320-E
2013-09-16
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RAMON ALVAREZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO BE
PROVIDED WITH DOCUMENTS
AND TO PROCEED IFP
In June 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Defendant Ramon Alvarez's request to file a successive § 2255 motion. [No. 13-71336] Alvarez sought to raise a claim that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance by advising him to reject an offer to plead guilty in exchange for a twenty-year sentence. Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012). Instead, Alvarez proceeded to trial and received a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Ninth Circuit cited Buenrostro v. United States, 697 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2012) (order). That decision held that Lafler did not create a new rule of constitutional law that could allow a prisoner to file a successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) because the Supreme Court had merely applied the firmly established principles of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) and Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985).
Soon thereafter, Alvarez submitted a request to proceed in forma pauperis on his request for a copy of the reporter's transcript of his December 9, 1991 sentencing hearing. The pro se motions were forwarded to chambers with discrepancy orders, but the Court instructed the clerk to file the motions.
The Court denies the motion to be provided with documents. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). A prisoner is not entitled to free copies of transcripts simply because he intends to bring a § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief in the future. Hoover v. United States, 416 F.2d 431, 431-32 (6th Cir. 1969); United States v. Groce, 838 F. Supp. 411, 414-16 (E.D. Wis. 1993). Here, Alvarez has not shown a non-frivolous need for the transcript. United States v. Shoaf, 341 F.2d 832 (4th Cir. 1964); United States v. Fabian, 758 F. Supp. 804 (D. R.I. 1991); see Henderson v. United States, 734 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir. 1984).
The Court denies as moot the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Groce, 838 F. Supp. at 413.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
WILLIAM B. ENRIGHT, Senior Judge
United States District Court