Forte v. County of Merced et al

Filing 179

ORDER in Response to Plaintiff's "Notice of Intent to Request Redaction and List of Redactions and Corrections to September 3, 2013 Transcript" (Doc. 112 in case 1:11-cv-00718-AWI-BAM) signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/23/2013. (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

EUGENE E. FORTE,
Plaintiff,

10
11

1:11 – CV – 00318 AWI BAM

vs.

12

1:11 – CV – 00718 AWI BAM

TOMMY JONES, an individual and DOES
1-100, inclusive,

13
14

Defendants.
15
16

EUGENE E. FORTE,
Plaintiff,

17

Doc. # 112

18
19

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S “NOTICE
OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION
AND LIST OF REDACTIONS AND
CORRECTIONS TO SEPTEMBER 3,
2013 TRANSCRIPT”

vs.
COUNTY OF MERCED, ET AL.,

20

Defendants.

21
22
The court has received from plaintiff Eugene E. Forte (“Plaintiff”) a document titled

23
24

“Notice of Intent to Request Redaction and List of Redactions and Corrections to September 3,

25

2013 Transcript” (hereinafter, the “Request”). Doc. # 112 in Case No. 0718. The request refers

26

to the court’s transcript of a hearing regarding the ability of Plaintiff to continue representation

27

of himself in both cases currently before the court and to lift the stay previously imposed in Case

28

No. 11cv0318. Plaintiff’s Request specifies fifteen instances where Plaintiff contends his

A

1
2
3
4
5
6

statements were misreported by the court’s stenographic reporter and has supplied in each
instance language that he contends reflects what he actually said during the hearing. While
Plaintiff’s Request is labeled a request for “redactions,” it is evident from the text that what
Plaintiff actually is seeking is correction of transcription errors. The court therefore deems
Plaintiff’s Request to be a motion for correction.
As an initial matter, the court observes that requests for correction of a court transcript is

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

an area not familiar to the court. There has long been a recognition that mistakes in the
recording of a proceeding can occur and that courts have the ability, if not the obligation, to
make corrections. See Goodenough Horseshoe Mfg. Co. v. Rhode Island Horseshoe Co., 154
U.S. 635, 635 (1877) (“If parts of the record below are omitted in the transcript, we may by
certiorari have the omissions supplied, but we cannot here correct errors which actually exist in
the record as it stands in the state court. For that purpose, application must be made there . . . .”).
The ability of a party to address alleged errors in a transcript of proceeding is provided by Rule
10 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 10(e)(2):

17

If anything material to either party is omitted from or misstated in the
record by error or accident, the omission or misstatement may be
corrected and a supplemental record may be certified and forwarded:

18

(A) on the stipulation of the parties.

19

(B) by the district court before or after the recorded has been forwarded.

16

20
While the court is uncertain as to the materiality of the corrections Plaintiff wishes to

21
22

make, the court does find that it has authority to make them to the extent that its review of the

23

audiotape of the proceeding supports the proposed corrections. The court has reviewed

24

Plaintiff’s Request, and hereby authorizes the following corrections as requested by Plaintiff:

25

//

26
//
27
28

//
-2A

1
2

AUTHORIZED TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS
Req. #

Pg./Ln.

FROM:

TO:

1

“Motion to Life Stay of
Proceedings”
“This is evident.”

Motion to Lift Stay of Proceedings

3

5

2

Title
Line
7:16

6

3

8:23-24

“This mystery evaluation”

This mental evaluation.

7

4

9:19-20

NO CHANGE AUTHORIZED

5

10:24-25

“what’s been brought outside
my papers that I filed here”
“He thinks he should be . . . .

6

15:4

NO CHANGE AUTHORIZED

7

16:8-9

8

17:13-14

9

17:15-17

10

18:1-2

11

19:18

“they see trials with Judge
Terrence Duncan”
“What of the defendants in
Merced County do at this
hearing?”
It’s a rights of comment, no,
maybe.”
“And anything before you say
that, as a derisive comment or
labeling, that’s actually called
a prior restriction of speech.”
“I received judgment against
the person that gave me the
____ .”
“and you’re laying these guys”

12

20:20-21

a letter, again, all inside of the
documentations that’s been filed

13

37:18-20

14

38:8-9

15

40:5

“a letter against all inside of
the documentations that’s been
filed”
“did go ahead and grant the
order saying . . .”
“What evidence would you
need to have more than a
bogus mental evaluation
spurred by declarations . . .”
“But from Weis’ attorney”

4

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

This is evidence.

He thinks I should be . . . .

What are the defendants in Merced
County doing at this hearing?
Derisive comment, no, maybe.
NO CHANGE AUTHORIZED

I received judgment against the person
who gave me death threats.
and you’re letting these guys

didn’t go ahead and grant the order
saying . . .”
What evidence would you need to have
more than a bogus mental evaluation,
supported by declarations . . .”
But from Licensed attorneys

25
26

The court hereby ORDERS that the foregoing authorized corrections be made to the

27
transcript of hearing held on September 3, 2013, in cases 11cv0718 and 11cv0318 and that the
28
-3A

1
2

corrected transcripts be provided to the parties. To the extent Plaintiff may seek correction of
those portions of the transcript where changes were not authorized, he may seek to reach a

3
4
5

stipulated agreement with the opposing parties or may submit further evidence supporting a
motion to make further corrections.

6
7
8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 23, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

0m8i788

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4A