Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03253/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03253-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derek Anderson
Appellant
Michael Grosko
Appellee
Bill D. Robinson
Appellee
Nick A. Tomasic
Appellee

Document Text:

) 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DEREK ANDERSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

FILED 

United Statff Courf of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

FEB 2 6 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

NICK A. TOMASIC; BILL D. ROBINSON; ) 

and MICHAEL GROSKO, ) 

) 

No. 90-3253 

(D.C. No. 90-3175-S) 

(District of Kansas) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This matter is before the court on appellant's motion for 

leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees. 

See 28 u.s.c. S 1915(a) (1988). We grant appellant's motion and 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3253 Document: 010110028864 Date Filed: 02/26/1991 Page: 1 
proceed to the merits of the case. 

Appellant, an inmate at the Kansas State Penitentiary, 

Lansing, Kansas, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 

complaint alleging an infringement of his civil rights in violation of 42 u.s.c. S 1983 (1988). In his complaint, appellant 

seeks copies of his trial transcripts for use in preparing his 

direct appeal. The district court dismissed appellant's complaint 

pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 1915(d) (1988). It concluded that because 

appellant's counsel, the State of Kansas Appellate Defender, had 

access to the district court record, appellant did not sufficiently allege the deprivation of a federal right. 

"Mindful that prose actions are held to a less stringent 

standard of review and that sua sponte dismissals are generally 

disfavored by the courts, we nonetheless allow a complaint to be 

dismissed under S 1915(d) 'if the plaintiff cannot make a rational 

argument on the law and facts in support of his claim.'" Yellen 

v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471, 1475 (10th Cir. 1987) (quoting Van 

Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1434 (10th Cir. 1986)). We 

review a district court's dismissal under section 1915(d) for an 

abuse of discretion. Id. 

It is clear that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses 

of the fourteenth amendment require states to provide indigent 

inmates transcripts when such transcripts are essential to achieving adequate appellate review. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3253 Document: 010110028864 Date Filed: 02/26/1991 Page: 2 
18-19 (1956). Courts generally have refused to recognize an indigent's constitutional right to a personal transcript, however, 

when a transcript has been made available to his or her counsel. 

See,~, Gay v. Watkins, 579 F. Supp. 1019, 1021 (E.D. Pa. 

1984); United States v. Davidson, 438 F. Supp. 1253, 1255 (N.D. 

Ind. 1977). Because appellant's counsel has access to the trial 

court record, including the transcript appellant seeks here, we do 

not find that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing appeliant's complaint. 

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3253 Document: 010110028864 Date Filed: 02/26/1991 Page: 3