×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Adherence To Administrative Procedure And Prepayment Required When Requesting Records' Production
Alabama State pro se prisoner Robert Gill petitioned for the review of a 2000 appellate order denying him production of materials concerning his conviction. Denial was affirmed for failure to follow administrative procedure.
Gill requested grand jury information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The court clerk referred the request to the judge involved in his case who denied the request. It was determined that Gill was using a FOIA request to obtain a discovery motion and that he failed to comply with requirements under Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure for post-judgment discovery. He claimed that he only sought to utilize his rights under the FOIA which are guaranteed him by § 36 12 40 Ala. Code 1975. Upon denial he filed for a writ of mandamus to reverse the ruling.
The Supreme Court of Alabama determined that "Gill never asserts that he, nor any of his agents, has ever made arrangements to pay the fees" and "never alleges that he or his agents were ever denied access to inspect or copy the documents" and that his "allegations concerned the trial court's unwillingness to reproduce documents at the court's expense and send them to him." The court ruled that § 36 12 40 does not place the burden or expense of identifying, copying, or mailing requested documents on the custodian. See: In re Alabama v. Gill. 841 So.2d 1231 (Ala. 2002).
Gill requested grand jury information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The court clerk referred the request to the judge involved in his case who denied the request. It was determined that Gill was using a FOIA request to obtain a discovery motion and that he failed to comply with requirements under Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure for post-judgment discovery. He claimed that he only sought to utilize his rights under the FOIA which are guaranteed him by § 36 12 40 Ala. Code 1975. Upon denial he filed for a writ of mandamus to reverse the ruling.
The Supreme Court of Alabama determined that "Gill never asserts that he, nor any of his agents, has ever made arrangements to pay the fees" and "never alleges that he or his agents were ever denied access to inspect or copy the documents" and that his "allegations concerned the trial court's unwillingness to reproduce documents at the court's expense and send them to him." The court ruled that § 36 12 40 does not place the burden or expense of identifying, copying, or mailing requested documents on the custodian. See: In re Alabama v. Gill. 841 So.2d 1231 (Ala. 2002).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
In re Alabama v. Gill
| Year | 2002 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 841 So.2d 1231 (Ala. 2002) |
| Level | State Supreme Court |
| Injunction Status | N/A |