United States v. Richard James Adamson, Jr., 681 F. App'x 824

Adamson, a federal prisoner acting pro se, appeals the denial of post-judgment motions for transcripts from his underlying criminal case, along with motions for reconsideration and recusal.
Adamson was convicted by a judge after a bench trial of nine counts for threatening a magistrate and soliciting the murder of an FBI agent; one count was a guilty plea to mailing a threatening communication to a magistrate judge.
Adamson challenged the trial judge’s relationships with magistrate judges involved in the case and sought recusal as part of his § 2255 proceedings, which were denied with prejudice.
An earlier panel affirmed the denial of his § 2255 motion in 2008, holding no due-process violation from the district judge’s failure to recuse given Adamson’s knowledge and absence of actual bias.
In 2016, Adamson filed a “motion for documents” seeking trial, sentencing, and evidentiary transcripts alleging newly discovered exculpatory evidence; the district court denied for lack of a timely, colorable claim for the documents.
Adamson also sought to convert the request into a second § 2255 motion; the court denied this, and he pursued recusal arguments, which the panel also rejected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 753(f) transcripts were ripe for an indigent defendant.	Adamson contends he needs transcripts to pursue a potentially non-frivolous second § 2255.	The government argues no pending § 2255 motion exists, so no government-funded transcripts are warranted and the request is not ripe.	No ripe § 753(f) entitlement; no pending § 2255 motion.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying reconsideration/recusal.	Adamson claims bias and improper recusal; transcripts are needed for a second § 2255 and for fairness.	Court previously found no reasonable basis for recusal; denial was within discretion.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed.
Whether the district court erred by denying recusal under § 455 and § 144.	Adamson asserts district judge’s impartiality could be questioned due to relationships with victims.	Past rulings and lack of proper § 144 affidavit negate recusal; impartiality not shown.	Recusal denial upheld.
Whether the brief may be construed as a request to file a second § 2255 motion.	Adamson asks to treat his pleading as a motion for leave to file a second § 2255.	Only a proper § 2255 2nd‑motion application may be entertained; not presented here.	Denied as to constructing brief; directed clerk to provide form for successive § 2255 motion.

MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court, 1976) (transcripts funded when pending proceeding requires them)
Herrera, 474 F.2d 1049 (5th Cir. 1973) (indigent defendants not entitled to transcripts for collateral attacks)
Skinner v. United States, 434 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1970) (same principle for indigent defendants and collateral challenges)
Adamson v. United States, 288 F. App’x 591 (11th Cir. 2008) (prior denial affirmed; no due-process violation from non-recusal)
Berger, 375 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2004) (adverse rulings alone do not establish implied bias)
Perkins, 787 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2015) (recusal standards; § 144 affidavit scrutiny)
Christo v. Padgett, 223 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2000) (bias must be actual and substantial to warrant recusal)
Green v. Union Foundry Co., 281 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion review for post-judgment motions)
Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823 (11th Cir. 2007) (recusal and disqualification standards)
Simms, 385 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2004) (recusal and disqualification standards)
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc adoption of pre-1981 Fifth Circuit decisions)