Robledo #250767 v. Taylor et al

Filing 223

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's motion to expedite (Doc. 221 ) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for transcripts at the government's expense (Doc. 219 ) is denied, without prejudice [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 6/23/17.(MAW)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Paul Anthony Robledo, 10 Plaintiff, 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-14-01864-PHX-JAT Nicole Taylor, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Plaintiff moves for a free copy of the transcript from the show cause hearing on November 14, 2016. (Doc. 219). 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a), the Court allowed the pro se Plaintiff to proceed 18 in forma pauperis in this case. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff requests that a transcript of the 19 November 14, 2016 hearing be provided to him free of charge because of his in forma 20 pauperis status. Plaintiff seeks the transcript for purposes of his appeal. Because certain 21 limitations apply to the provision of transcripts at the government=s expense, the Court 22 must determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to the transcript. 23 Congress addressed the issue of furnishing transcripts at public expense in 28 24 U.S.C. ' 753(f). The statute provides that A[f]ees for transcripts furnished in other 25 proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall also be paid by the 26 United States if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous 27 (but presents a substantial question). 28 28 U.S.C. ' 753(f) (1996) (parenthetical in 1 original).1 The statute’s purpose is to prevent the waste of taxpayer dollars on transcripts 2 for use in baseless appeals. Therefore, the Court must determine whether Plaintiff=s 3 proposed appeal has some merit before it directs the government to pay for his 4 transcripts. 5 Accordingly, Plaintiff must articulate some ground for appeal that requires 6 transcripts before the Court will subject the government to that expense. 7 proceeding in forma pauperis, transcripts cannot be provided merely to allow [Plaintiff] 8 to search for grounds for relief. Bonner v. Henderson, 517 F.2d 135, 135 (5th Cir. 1975) 9 (per curiam). When Instead, Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating nonfrivolity and 10 substantiality of the claims. See Maloney v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 396 F.2d 11 939, 940 (D.C. Cir. 1967). Therefore, the Court must examine whether the proposed 12 appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question). 13 The language in ' 753(f) suggests that the inquiries of frivolity and substantiality 14 are not identical. Corgain v. Miller states that a claim is frivolous Aif the petitioner can 15 make no rational argument in law or facts to support his claim for relief.@ 708 F.2d 1241, 16 1247 (7th Cir. 1983). 17 Areasonably debatable.@ Maloney, 396 F.2d at 940 (citing Ortiz v. Greyhound Corp., 192 18 F.Supp. 903, 905 (D. Md.1959)). Regardless, the statute mandates that Plaintiff=s reason 19 for obtaining free transcripts must be nonfrivolous and also present a substantial 20 question. 21 nonfrivolous, substantial reason for obtaining the transcripts. On the other hand, a Asubstantial@ question is defined as Therefore, the Court must determine whether the Plaintiff stated a 22 In his motion, Plaintiff states, “[T]ranscripts of the 11-14-2016 hearing are needed 23 so the Plaintiff can refer to portions in his brief(s) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 24 Ninth Circuit.” (Doc. 219 at 1). This is Plaintiff’s sole justification for transcripts. 25 Defendants oppose the request for transcripts arguing that the November 14, 2016 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff=s motion falls within the meaning of Aother proceedings@ that are contemplated by '753(f), which describes the procedure for obtaining transcripts at the government=s expense in the context of criminal or habeas corpus proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. 753(f). -2- 1 hearing did not bear on the Court’s summary judgment ruling; thus the hearing will not 2 be relevant to the appeal. (Doc. 222). On this record, the Court cannot determine if 3 Defendant is correct because the Court does not know for exactly what purpose on appeal 4 Plaintiff seeks the transcript. Therefore, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff’s 5 purpose is nonfrivolous and substantial. Accordingly, on this record, the Court cannot 6 grant Plaintiff’s request. 7 Thus, 8 IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion to expedite (Doc. 221) is granted. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for transcripts at the 10 11 government’s expense (Doc. 219) is denied, without prejudice. Dated this 23rd day of June, 2017. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?