Newman v. Show Low Police Department et al

Filing 96

ORDER denying 93 Plaintiff's Motion for Waiver of Transcript Fee. See attached Order. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 9/17/2015.(TLB)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Joe Newman, No. CV-13-08005-PCT-JAT Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Show Low Police Department, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 The Court previously granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status at the outset of this 16 case when the only inkling as to the nature of Plaintiff’s claims was in his complaint. 17 (Doc. 6). Since that time, this case has progressed through numerous motions, discovery, 18 and a grant of summary judgment in Defendants’ favor. Plaintiff has appealed to the 19 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Plaintiff now moves for the production of transcripts 20 in support of his appeal at government expense. (Doc. 93). 21 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) provides: “Fees for transcripts furnished in other proceedings 22 to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall also be paid by the United States if 23 the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a 24 substantial question).” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that an order 25 “directing production of a transcript at government expense pursuant to § 753(f) 26 implicitly embodies a finding by the court that the appeal presents a substantial issue.” 27 Henderson v. United States, 734 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir. 1984); accord Popescu v. City of 28 San Diego, 2012 WL 37166, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2012). 1 The Court is now thoroughly familiar with the legal and factual theories of 2 Plaintiff’s case, and finds that Plaintiff’s appeal does not present a substantial issue. 3 Plaintiff failed to present evidence showing a disputed issue of material fact regarding the 4 circumstances of his arrest. Plaintiff’s dogged insistence that the video of his arrest has 5 been falsified is unsupported by competent evidence. The Court further finds that 6 Plaintiff’s case is frivolous. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to a waiver of the 7 transcript fees. 8 For the foregoing reasons, 9 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s motion for a waiver of transcript fees (Doc. 10 11 93). Dated this 17th day of September, 2015. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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?