Morris et al v. City of Fresno et al

Filing 304

ORDER denying 301 Motion for Transcripts at Government Expense, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/19/2012. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

ROBERT MORRIS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
OFFICER CHRISTOPHER LONG,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

1:08-cv-01422-AWI-MJS
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR TRANSCRIPTS AT
GOVERNMENT
EXPENSE
(Doc. 301)

16
17
I. INTRODUCTION
18
19
Plaintiff Robert Morris has filed a motion for production of trial transcripts at government expense.
20
For reasons discussed below, the motion shall be denied.
21
22
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
23
24
The Court refers the parties to previous orders for a complete chronology of the proceedings. On
25
January 11, 2012, plaintiff Robert Morris (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) filed his ninth
26
amended complaint, asserting one cause of action against defendant Officer Christopher Long
27
(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) for federal civil rights violations – in particular, excessive
28

1

force in violation of the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures

2

– pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A jury trial commenced on August 21, 2012. On September 5,

3

2012, the jury returned a verdict of not liable, finding Defendant had not used excessive force against

4

Plaintiff in violation of the Fourth Amendment. On September 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed an

5

application (doc. 296) to proceed in forma pauperis for the purpose of appealing the judgment to the

6

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In conjunction with that motion, Plaintiff requested he

7

be provided trial transcripts at government expense. Plaintiff renewed his request for trial transcripts

8

in a formal motion (doc. 301), unopposed by Defendant, filed October 3, 2012.

9
10

III. LEGAL STANDARD

11
12

“Each reporter may charge and collect fees for transcripts requested by the parties, including the

13

United States, at rates prescribed by the court subject to the approval of the Judicial Conference;”

14

fees for transcripts furnished outside of criminal proceedings or habeas petitions to persons appealing

15

in forma pauperis, as here, “shall . . . be paid by the United States if the trial judge or a circuit judge

16

certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question).” 28 U.S.C. § 753(f).

17

The appellant “has the burden of demonstrating nonfrivolity and substantiality of the claims.” Randle

18

v. Franklin, slip copy, 2012 WL 201757 (E.D.Cal. January 23, 2012), at *2 (citing Maloney v. E.I.

19

du Pont de Nemours & Co., 396 F.2d 939, 940 (D.C.Cir. 1967)).

20
21

IV. DISCUSSION

22
23

In his motion, Plaintiff fails to explain the basis for his request for trial transcripts. Plaintiff

24

presumably requires transcripts to assist with his appeal, but even so, he must identify the issues he

25

intends to raise on appeal and explain why those issues are meritorious in order to meet the

26

abovementioned standard. That was not done here. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff cannot

27
28

2

1

demonstrate his appeal is not frivolous and presents a substantial question, and his motion for

2

production of trial transcripts must be therefore be denied.

3
4

V. DISPOSITION

5
6

Based on the foregoing, the motion of plaintiff Robert Morris for production of trial transcripts at

7

government expense is DENIED.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated:
0m8i78

October 19, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3