Vlasich v. Nareddy et al

Filing 145

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING 144 Request for Transcripts signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/7/2019. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

STEVEN VLASICH,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

1:13-cv-00326-LJO-EPG (PC)

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPTS

v.
DR. C. NAREDDY and DR. O.
BEREGOVSKAYA,
DEFENDANTS.

(ECF NO. 144)

14
15
16

Plaintiff Steven Vlasich, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleged

17

in this case that Defendants Dr. Nareddy and Dr. Beregovskaya (collectively “Defendants”) were

18

deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C.

19

§ 1983. After a jury trial on February 27 and 28, 2019, ECF Nos. 133 & 134, the jury quickly

20

returned a special verdict indicating that Plaintiff did not have a serious medical need. ECF No.

21

135. On April 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. ECF No. 139. On April 29, 2019,

22

Plaintiff filed a motion for preparation of transcript at government’s expense. ECF No. 144.

23

Plaintiff asks the Court to order transcripts of the trial at the government’s expense. He

24

plans to us the transcripts to support an appeal. According to Plaintiff, the transcripts will “expose

25

the overwhelming evidence of a serious medical condition, while at the same time showing a

26

lack of any evidence that Plaintiff did not have a serious medical condition, thus proving the

27

jury’s verdict was against the evidence.” ECF No. 144.

28
1

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), “[f]ees for transcripts furnished in [civil] proceedings to

2

persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall also be paid by the United States if the trial

3

judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial

4

question).” A substantial question exists where the issue before the court of appeals is

5

reasonably debatable.” Tuggles v. City of Antioch, C08–01914JCS, 2010 WL 3955784 (N.D.

6

Cal. Oct. 8, 2010) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Randle v. Franklin, No.

7

CV-08-00845-JAT, 2012 WL 201757, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2012).

8

Plaintiff already has received approval to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7), and

9

there is no indication in the record that his financial situation has changed. However, Plaintiff

10

has failed to demonstrate that his appeal presents a substantial issue. As the Court indicated in its

11

order denying Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, “[t]he matters in dispute were fact questions for

12

the jury to decide and the evidence presented could have gone either way. The record provides

13

the Court with no basis on which it could conclude that the jury made a mistake, let alone that

14

the jurors ignored the law provided to them.” ECF No. 142 at 2. The ground(s) for appeal

15

advanced by Plaintiff do not present any substantial question(s). Accordingly, it is inappropriate

16

to provide transcripts for Plaintiff at government expense.

17

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

18

Based on the facts the Court has before it, it is unable to find that Plaintiff’s appeal

19

presents a substantial question. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion

20

for preparation of transcript at government’s expense is DENIED.

21

Should Plaintiff seek a transcript from the court reporter, a request must be made in

22

writing and addressed to the court reporter. Any payment arrangements must be made with the

23

court reporter as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 753(f).

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

May 7, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2