Cole v. Munoz et al
Filing
143
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 142 Motion for Transcripts signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 08/02/2013. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JAMES COLE,
Case No. 1:09-cv-00476-SAB (PC)
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
LIEUTENANT MUNOZ, et al.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
TRANSCRIPTS
(ECF No. 142)
13
Defendants.
14
15
Plaintiff James Cole (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
16
pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 13, 2009. On April
17
4, 2013, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against Defendants Rocha and
18
Blasdell for excessive force only and found that their conduct was malicious, oppressive, or in
19
reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights. The Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants
20
Munoz and Dicks for excessive force and in favor of Defendants Munoz, Dicks, Rocha, and
21
Blasdell for retaliation. (ECF No. 122.) On June 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
22
(ECF No. 136.) On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a motion requesting trial transcripts.
23
(ECF No. 142.)
24
A litigant who has been granted in forma pauperis status may move to have transcripts
25
produced at government expense. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f); McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d
26
1500, 1511-12 (9th Cir.1991) (subsequent history omitted). Two statutes must be considered
27
whenever the district court receives a request to prepare transcripts at the government’s expense.
28
First, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) defines the limited circumstances under which the court can direct
1
1
payment the government to pay for transcripts for a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis.
2
(c) Upon the filing of an affidavit in accordance with subsections
(a) and (b) and the prepayment of any partial filing fee as may be
required under subsection (b), the court may direct payment by the
United States of the expenses of (1) printing the record on appeal in
any civil or criminal case, if such printing is required by the
appellate court; (2) preparing a transcript of proceedings before a
United States magistrate judge in any civil or criminal case, if such
transcript is required by the district court, in the case of proceedings
conducted under section 636(b) of this title or under section
3401(b) of title 18, United States Code; and (3) printing the record
on appeal if such printing is required by the appellate court, in the
case of proceedings conducted pursuant to section 636(c) of this
title. Such expenses shall be paid when authorized by the Director
of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
28 U.S.C. § 1915(c).
10
Second, 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) allows the court to order the government to pay for transcripts
11
12
only if “the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the suit or appeal is not frivolous and that
the transcript is needed to decide the issue presented by the suit or appeal.” 28 U.S.C. § 753(f).
13
A request for a transcript at government expense should not be granted unless the appeal presents
14
a substantial question. Henderson v. United States, 734 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir. 1984).
15
Based on Plaintiff’s notice of appeal, the Court finds that the appeal does not present a
16
substantial question and the request for a transcript at government expense is denied. Plaintiff
17
may renew his request for a transcript at government expense with the appellate court by filing a
18
motion there if he wishes. In addition, Plaintiff is notified that the appellate court has access to
19
the court’s file in this case, and will request any necessary documents that are in the record
20
directly from this court. Accordingly,
21
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for transcripts is DENIED.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated:
August 2, 2013
_
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?