IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 95-40533
Summary Calendar
_____________________
GETZELL JOHNSON MURRELL, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FELIX THOMPSON, Court Reporter for the 3rd
Judicial District Court, Anderson County,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(6 95-CV-28)
_________________________________________________________________
October 30, 1995
Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Getzell Johnson Murrell appeals the decision of the district
court to administratively close his case until he returns to Texas.
We affirm, although for a different reason than that given by the
district court.
Murrell is a federal prisoner incarcerated in the federal
facility located in Florence, Colorado. He filed a civil rights
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a court reporter, Felix
Thompson, alleging that Thompson violated the Court Reporter Act;
denied Murrell access to the courts; and violated his due process
rights by refusing to respond to Murrell's inquiries and requests
for transcripts of two Texas state criminal proceedings. Murrell
pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault and capital murder in
Anderson County, Texas, state court proceedings, Docket Nos. 22779
and 22980. Murrell states that he "waived appeal." Murrell
attempted to contact Thompson by telephone and by letter to order
the transcripts of the proceedings and indicated that he was
willing to pay the cost of the transcripts. Thompson did not
respond to Murrell's inquiries. On September 12, 1994, Murrell
sent a certified letter to Thompson, explaining that he had
attempted to order the transcript on numerous occasions without
response and threatening to file a lawsuit against Thompson if he
failed to respond. Thompson responded by letter stating that he
would get back to Murrell soon. When Thompson again failed to
respond or provide the requested transcripts, Murrell filed this
action on January 19, 1995.
The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that
Murrell's action be administratively closed due to Murrell's
extended out-of-state residency. The district court adopted the
magistrate judge's findings and conclusions as correct, and ordered
that the case be administratively closed. Murrell timely filed a
notice of appeal.
Murrell contends that the district court erred in
2
administratively closing his action solely because he does not
presently reside in the state of Texas. He maintains that the
indefinite stay of the proceedings in this case would effectively
deny him access to the courts as he will be incarcerated in the
federal facility located in Colorado for approximately the next 25
years. He maintains that such a lengthy stay would significantly
prejudice his ability to litigate his claim.
The district court's order administratively closing the case
is the equivalent of a final judgment. See Johnson v. State of
Texas, 878 F.2d 904, 905 (5th Cir. 1989) (order holding case in
abeyance was appealable under collateral order doctrine of Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949)). Therefore,
this court has jurisdiction to review the district court's order.
Murrell alleges a denial of due process because Thompson has
prevented him from either purchasing or obtaining a free transcript
of his state court proceedings. Murrell has not alleged any
constitutional violations affecting the validity of his convictions
or sentences. He merely asserts that he has a constitutional right
to obtain a state-court transcript to determine whether it contains
any errors.
On direct appeal, a convicted defendant has the right to
obtain a trial transcript or an alternative device that fulfills
the same function as a transcript. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S.
12, 18-20 (1956). However, as noted above, Murrell waived his
right to appeal the state convictions and sentences. Murrell has
failed to demonstrate that he has been deprived of a constitutional
3
right as the result of the unavailability of the transcript.
Murrell does not have a constitutional right to obtain a state-
court transcript to conduct a "fishing expedition" to seek out
possible trial errors. See Jackson v. Estelle, 672 F.2d 505, 506
(5th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). Because Murrell has not
alleged the deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory
right, he is not entitled to either habeas or civil rights relief.
See Thomas v. Torres, 717 F.2d 248, 248-49 (5th Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 456 U.S. 1010 (1984) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal).
We AFFIRM the district court's decision on the alternative
ground that Murrell is not entitled to relief under § 1983.
Murrell has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) on appeal. Murrell's motion is DENIED as unnecessary because
the district court granted his motion for leave to proceed IFP on
appeal.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
4