USA v. Adams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
CENTRAL DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 3:18-CR-30147-RAL
Plaintiff,
vs. ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
FRANK EDWARD ADAMS,
Defendant.
Defendant Frank Edward Adams was convicted of conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine after a jury trial. Adams appealed his conviction and sentence, and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Docs. 186,187. Thereafter, Adams filed
a pro se motion seeking,among other things, all witness statements, all transcripts, and all recorded
interviews from his case. Doc. 188. This Court denied the motion. Doc. 189. Adams has now
filed the same motion again. Doc. 190. Adams seeks these documents so that he "can prepare
adequate defence [sic] for his Justice, Freedom, and Liberty." Doc. 190. For the reasons stated
below, this Court denies the motion.
In limited circumstances. Indigent defendants may obtain court transcripts free of charge
to challenge their convictions and sentences under 28 U.S.C. § 2255:
Fees for transcripts furnished in proceedings brought under section 2255 ofthis title
to persons permitted to sue or appeal in forma pauperis shall be paid by the United
States out ofmoney appropriated for that purpose ifthe trial judge or a circuitjudge
certifies that the suit or appeal is not frivolous and that the transcript is needed to
decide the issue presented by the suit or appeal.
Case 3:18-cr-30147-RAL Document 192 Filed 07/22/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

28 U.S.C. § 753(f). Thus, § 753(f) is not implicated unless the defendant has filed an appeal or
habeas corpus petition. United States v. Bamett. 389 F. App'x 575, 575 (8th Cir. 2010)(per
curiam); United States v. Bums. No. I8-cr-0076 (WMW/TNL), 2019 WL 4440093, at *I (D.
Minn. Sept. 17, 2019). Once the defendant has filed an appeal or habeas corpus petition, he must
establish that his case is not fHvolous and the transcripts are needed to decide the issue presented
in the appeal or habeas corpus petition. Chapman v. United States. 55 F.3d 390, 390-91 (8th Cir.
19951 (per curiam): United States v. Losing.601 F.2d 351, 352(8th Cir. 1979)(per curiam). The
Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of§ 753(f) as "a prisoner has no absolute right to
a transcript to assist him in the preparation ofa collateral attack on his conviction." United States
V. Lewis.605 F.2d 379, 379(8th Cir. 1979)(per curiam)(citing United States v. MacCollom.426
U.S. 317(1976)).
Though Adams does not explicitly state that he needs certain documents to challenge his
conviction under § 2255, that seems to be the thrust of his motion. However, Adams has not filed
a habeas corpus petition with this Court. Indeed, Adams does not have any pending matters before
this Court, and this particular criminal case is closed. Further, Adams's motion does not provide
any information about the claims Adams intends to file in support ofa habeas corpus petition. As
such, this Court is unable to determine whether his petition would be frivolous or whether
transcripts are needed to decide any issues presented by such a petition. For these reasons,
Adams's request for free transcripts prior to the filing of a motion to vacate under § 2255 is
premature.' See United States v. Arechiea. No. CR 04-10029, 2009 WL 4891713, at *1 (D.S.D.
'If Adams does file a § 2255 petition and still wishes to obtain free transcripts in relation to that
petition, he must file his motion for documents in the civil § 2255 case, not the present criminal
case. United States v. Casteel. No. l;08-CR-53, 2014 WL 12935634, at "'3 (S.D. Iowa May 28,
2014).
Case 3:18-cr-30147-RAL Document 192 Filed 07/22/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

Dec. 17,2009)(citing United States v. Long.601 F.2d351,352(8th Cir. 1979)): United States v.
Franklin. No. 05-00398-01-CR-W-FJG, 2008 WL 2690300, at *1 (W.D. Mo. July I, 2008)
(citing Losing.601 F.3dat353).
To the extent that Adams requests these documents for some other reason other than to file
an action under § 2255, Adams has not identified any legal basis on which this Court should grant
his motion. See Casteel. 2014 WL 12935634, at *3 (denying defendant's motion for transcripts
because there was no pending action under § 2255 or any other legal basis on which to grant the
defendant's motion). After all, "an indigent criminal defendant is not entitled to a transcript at
government expense without a showing of the need, merely to comb the record in the hope of
discovering some flaw." United States v. Slaughter. No. CR072971IDWFJSM, 2011 WL
13141448, at *1(D. Minn. May 31,2011)(cleaned up)(quoting Colbert v. United States. 325 F.2d
920, 922 (8th Cir. 1964)); see also United States v. Hodge. No. CRIM. 12-7 RHK, 2013 WL
5467301, at *2(D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2013)("It appears to the Court that Defendant is seeking free
court documents simply to peruse them, with the hope offinding something that might somehow
support a collateral challenge to his conviction or sentence. However, court documents will not
be provided (free ofcharge)for such purposes."). In sum, Adams has failed to establish that he is
entitled to any ofthe court documents that he seeks.
Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Discovery, Doc. 190, is denied.
DATED this 22nd day ofJuly, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
ROBERTO A. LANGE
CHIEF JUDGE
Case 3:18-cr-30147-RAL Document 192 Filed 07/22/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>