Opinion
Cr. No. 7:08-662-HMH.
August 11, 2009
OPINION ORDER
This matter is before the court on Terron Jamar Watson's ("Watson") pro se motion for "transcript(s) of proceedings and transmission of the record" at the Government's expense. This court construes pro se motions liberally, and such pro se motions are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). However, even if the court applies this less stringent standard, Watson's request for transcripts at the Government's expense cannot be granted. A prisoner who requests free copies of records in his or her criminal case, whether it is a state case or a federal case, must show a particularized need for such records. Jones v. Superintendent, Virginia State Farm, 460 F.2d 150, 152-53 (4th Cir. 1972), reh'g granted, 465 F.2d 1091, 1094 (4th Cir. 1972) (adhering to prior opinion and denying rehearing en banc); Morin v. United States, 522 F.2d 8, 9 (4th Cir. 1975) (applying Jones to federal prisoner).
Watson has not shown a particularized need for the transcripts. In fact, the reason Watson requests copies of the transcripts and record is to "allow the Bureau of Prisons the authority to recalculate defendant[']s sentences above as being concurrent." (Mot. Transcripts 3.) Notably, the court issued an amended judgment on July 9, 2009, clarifying that Watson's sentences are to be served concurrently. Accordingly, Watson's motion for a copy of transcripts at the Government's expense is denied.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Watson's motion for transcripts at the Government's expense, docket number 51, is denied.