Morris Tyler v. Leroy Cartledge, No. 14-6735 (4th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6735 MORRIS TYLER, Petitioner Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (6:13-cv-03076-JMC) Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Morris Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Morris Tyler appeals the district court s order denying his motion for copies and its order granting in part and denying in part his motion for reconsideration of that order. A district court judge before whom a habeas petition is pending may order a district court clerk to provide copies of court documents proceeding at in government forma expense pauperis. to 28 a habeas U.S.C. petitioner § 2250 (2012). However, provision of such copies is a matter of discretion with the district court before which the habeas petition is pending. See United States v. Connors, 904 F.2d 535, 536 (9th Cir. 1990) (necessity of pending habeas petition); Walker v. United States, 424 F.2d 278, 278-79 (5th Cir. 1970) (same). Here, Tyler had no habeas petition pending at the time he filed his motion for copies. Moreover, he did not demonstrate a need for copies, where the documents he sought were either provided to him previously or are not necessary to the filing of his proposed 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2012) application. Finding no abuse of discretion in the district court s rulings, we affirm the orders at issue. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 2 in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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.