Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

152 F.2d 141

Docket Misc. No. 99.

In re Fullam

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1945-12-04

1 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““the in forma pauperis statute makes no provision requiring the District Court or the clerk thereof to furnish an indigent litigant with copies of papers or records,”.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Perkins v. Rich

“The Statute “applies only to court costs”.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Perkins v. Rich

Relies on Miller v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1945-12-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 1980 · most notably Ketcherside v. United States (1963), Boyden v. Commissioner of Patents (1971)

18 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

12019451950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. Edward C. Fullam, pro se.

¶2Before GRONER, C. J„ and WILBUR K. MILLER and PRETTYMAN, JJ.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Petitioner submitted a motion in forma pauperis to the District Court to obtain a transcript of the record, indictment, and of the judgment containing the sentence and order of commitment rendered in 1939, in criminal case No. 63119, United States v. Fullam, in said District Court, for use in preparing a motion to vacate said judgment, claiming that under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 832, he is entitled to the transcript without being required to pay the fees therefor. The District Court after consideration thereof denied his request, and he now applies to this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court to furnish said transcript. The District Court having ruled upon petitioner’s motion, mandamus will not lie to review its determination, for it is ■ settled that the writ may not be used as a substitute for appeal.

¶5In any event, the statute upon which petitioner relies does not support his contention. The statute provides that a citizen, upon filing of the required statement of poverty under oath, may be allowed to “commence and prosecute or defend to conclusion any action, or an appeal to the circuit court of appeals in such suit or action, including all appellate proceedings, without being required to prepay fees or costs or for the printing of the record in the appellate court or give security therefor, before or after bringing suit or action, or upon appealing”, and the statute also provides that in a criminal case the court may direct that the expense of printing the record on appeal be paid by the United States.

¶6In Miller v. United States, 1942, 317 U. S. 192, 197, 63 S.Ct. 187, 190, 87 L.Ed. 179, the court said that the statute, “applies only to court costs, permits the taking of an appeal without prepayment of cost of printing the record in the appellate court, and provides in certain cases for the printing of that record at Government expense. It does not authorize the procurement of a transcript of the testimony nor the payment for services in reporting evidence taken at the trial nor for the obtaining of it by the Government in behalf of an indigent defendant.” What the effect of the Court Reporter Act, Act of January 20, 1944, Pub. No. 222, 78th Cong., 58 Stat. 5, 28 U.S.C.A. § 9a, may be, we need not decide on this petition.

¶7Since the in forma pauperis statute makes no provision requiring the District Court or the clerk thereof to furnish an indigent litigant with copies of papers' or records, the petition must be denied.

¶8Petition denied.

/152/f2d/141 · .json · Public domain