In re the Motion of Johnson
In the Matter of the Motion of Louis Melvin JOHNSON
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Weinberger (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a petition for habeas corpus (treated as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion) filed by a defendant seeking to vacate his sentence based on trial testimony. The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis in part, denied the request for transcripts, and denied the § 2255 motion.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis granted in part“The defendant has established that he is a pauper within the meaning of Section 1915(a) of Title 28, U.S.C.A. and it is ordered that his papers be filed.” | agree with court The court found the defendant met the statutory definition of a pauper under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Granting the ability to file papers is the standard procedural consequence of establishing pauper status. |
Request for transcripts and commitment papers denied“He shows no necessity for putting the Government to the expense of having the proceedings transcribed. He has already been given a copy of the indictment. The Clerk is ordered to forward to him without charge a certified copy of the judgment. In all other respects, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.” | agree with court The court determined the defendant failed to demonstrate the necessity for the government to bear the cost of transcription, which is a requirement for IFP status regarding specific expenses. The court provided the judgment copy, which is typically required for filing, but denied the broader request for trial transcripts without a showing of necessity. |
Motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 denied“The defendant’s motion, on its face, shows conclusively that he is not entitled to relief under Section 2255 of Title 28, U.S.C.A., and said motion is therefore denied.” | agree with court The court treated the habeas petition as a § 2255 motion. It denied the motion because the defendant was attempting to re-try his case by challenging the sufficiency of the evidence (claiming he was not guilty), which is not a valid ground for collateral attack under § 2255. The court relied on the fact that the defendant had competent counsel and a jury verdict. |
The order itself: sound — The court correctly identified the jurisdictional limitation regarding habeas corpus (defendant in another district) and properly recharacterized the petition as a § 2255 motion. The denial of the § 2255 motion is supported by the cited circuit authorities establishing that § 2255 is not a vehicle for re-trying the case or challenging the sufficiency of the evidence when the defendant was represented by counsel. The IFP ruling follows standard procedure for pauper status and expense allocation.
Opinion — Weinberger
WEINBERGER District Judge.
The defendant, in propia persona, has presented for filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and has asked that the Court have prepared, without expense to the defendant, a copy of the indictment, a transcript of proceedings throughout the jury trial, a transcript, of the proceedings at the sentencing, and copies of the commitment papers, all for the purpose of preparing a motion to vacate and set aside sentence. The defendant in said motion claims that a transcript of the proceedings will show that the defendant was not guilty of the crime charged.
At the same time, the defendant has presented a paper headed “Writ of Habeas Corpus”; the paper is also entitled “Motion for Time Served.” Therein, the defendant prays that this Court vacate the sentence imposed upon him and that he be released.
This Court has no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, he being confined in another District, and thus no jurisdiction to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus. It is obvious that the defendant intends said paper to be a motion under Section 2255 of Title 28, U.S.C.A. and we will so consider it.
The defendant has established that he is a pauper within the meaning of Section 1915(a) of Title 28, U.S.C.A. and it is ordered that his papers be filed. He shows no necessity for putting the Government to the expense of having the proceedings transcribed. He has *759already been given a copy of the indictment. The Clerk is ordered to forward to him without charge a certified copy of the judgment. In all other respects, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.
The defendant asks the Court to note certain testimony adduced at the trial, which testimony, the defendant urges, shows that he was not guilty of the crime charged. This Court presided at the trial, the defendant was represented by competent counsel, the jury found the defendant guilty.
By his motion, defendant seeks to re-try his case. Section 2255 of Title 28, U.S.C.A. does not authorize such procedure. Taylor v. U. S., 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 194; Banghart v. U. S., 4 Cir., 208 F.2d 902.
The defendant’s motion, on its face, shows conclusively that he is not entitled to relief under Section 2255 of Title 28, U.S.C.A., and said motion is therefore denied. U. S. v. Fleenor, 7 Cir., 177 F.2d 482; Klein v. U. S., 7 Cir., 204 F.2d 513.