Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Donald Lee Kirby, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Bill S. Sutton, Court Reporter for Criminal District Courtno. 5, Dallas County, Texas, Defendant-appellee.no. 30701 Summary Calendar.**rule 18, 5 Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431f.2d 409
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 436 F.2d 1082
Jan. 18, 1971
Donald L. Kirby, pro se.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH, and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The complaint underlying this appeal was brought under the civil rights jurisdiction of the court, 42 U.S.C.A. section 1983, 28 U.S.C.A. section 1343, against a state court reporter to obtain a copy of the transcript of the state trial wherein petitioner, a state prisoner, was convicted. It is alleged that the transcript is needed for study so as to enable petitioner to petition for post-conviction relief.
There was no showing whatever that petitioner had exhausted available postconviction remedies in the Texas State Courts. The transcript question presented is properly a part of such state post-conviction remedy, being ancillary thereto.
We treat the petition as a petition for the federal writ of habeas corpus and dismiss for failure to exhaust available state remedies. 28 U.S.C.A. section 2254; Stepp v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1968, 398 F.2d 814; Texas v. Payton, 5 Cir., 1968, 390 F.2d 261. Compare the exhaustion efforts in Wade v. Wilson, 1970, 396 U.S. 282, 90 S.Ct. 501, 24 L.Ed.2d 470.
The judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint is affirmed.