Court Opinion

ID: 9655032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:58:28.372032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:15.626929
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
The petitioner moved the Court on May 4, 1984 “to rehear” its order herein of April 17, 1984, dismissing his application for the federal writ of habeas corpus.* Such motion hereby is
DENIED, because:
(1) The Constitution does not require that an indigent-defendant be provided a free transcript for use in attacking his conviction collaterally where, as here, such a transcript was available on direct appeal. United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 325-326, 96 S.Ct. 2086, 2092[8], 48 L.Ed.2d 666 (1976) (plurality opinion), cited in Johnson v. Hubbard, 698 F.2d 286, 289, n. 1 (6th Cir.1983), cert. den. — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 282, 78 L.Ed.2d 260 (1983), for the proposition that due process does not require a free-transcript on appeal for an indigent-plaintiff in a habeas corpus action.
(2) An indigent-prisoner is not entitled to a free-transcript merely for the purpose of searching it for grounds for a possible application for post-conviction or habeas corpus relief. Bentley v. United States, 431 F.2d 250, 254[3] (6th Cir.1970), cert. den. 401 U.S. 920, 91 S.Ct. 907, 27 L.Ed.2d 823 (1971); Lucas v. United States, 423 F.2d 683, 684-685 [5] (6th Cir.1970); Ellis v. State of Maine, 448 F.2d 1325, 1327[3] (1st Cir.1971).

 The Court deems such motion as arising under Rule 60(b), F.R.Civ.P., since it was not served within the 10-day period established by Rules 52(b), 59(e), F.R.Civ.P. See Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of III., 434 U.S. 257, 261-263, 98 S.Ct. 556, 559-560 n. 5 & n. 7, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978).