Unpublished Dispositionunited States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Lewis B. Johnson, Defendant-appellant, 918 F.2d 958 (6th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 918 F.2d 958 (6th Cir. 1990) Nov. 19, 1990

Before KEITH, KENNEDY and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

This pro se federal prisoner appeals the district court's order denying his motion to compel his former attorney to hand over court records to him. He requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Appellee United States has filed a motion to withdraw as a party to the appeal. The appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. The panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not necessary. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

Lewis B. Johnson filed a motion to compel his former counsel to provide him with copies of court documents. The attorney responded that the requested documents were not in his possession. The district court denied the motion to compel.

Within ten days of entry of the order denying the motion, Johnson filed a motion to vacate the order and an amended motion to vacate the order. These motions were denied by marginal notation.

On appeal, Johnson renews his request for the documents. Appellee moves to withdraw as a party and asserts that, in an independent effort to bring this matter to an end, it has provided copies of the requested documents to Johnson.

Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to compel delivery of requested documents. While Johnson's status as a pauper may entitle him to waiver of certain costs, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), it does not entitle him to a copy of the court record at counsel's expense.

Second, we note that the United States is not a party to the controversy between Johnson and his attorney.

Accordingly, appellee's motion to withdraw as a party is granted, Johnson's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis also is granted, and the district court's order is hereby affirmed. Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.