Hazeltine v. Hicks et al

Filing 185

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 178 Request for Copy of Transcripts at Government Expense signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/18/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICK HAZELTINE,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
15

1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR COPY OF TRANSCRIPTS
AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE
(ECF NO. 178.)

IAN YOUNG, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

19

Rick Hazeltine (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

20

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. District Judge Dale A. Drozd

21

presided over a jury trial in this case. On August 10, 2018, the jury returned a unanimous

22

verdict in favor of the defendants.

23

On August 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a request for a copy of transcripts at government

24

expense. (ECF No. 178.)

25

II.

MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPT

26

A.

27

To obtain a transcript at government expense, Plaintiff must satisfy the criteria of 28

28

U.S.C. § 753(f). Section 753(f) provides, in part, that the United States shall pay the fees for

Legal Standard

1

1

transcripts furnished in civil proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis

2

(IFP) if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (i.e., it presents

3

a substantial question). § 753(f). This requirement is applicable to pro se litigants. See Morris

4

v. Long, No. 1:08–cv–01422–AWI–MJS, 2012 WL 5208503, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2012)

5

(finding that the pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis was required to “identify the

6

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

7

meet the . . . standard [for production of trial transcripts at government expense].”); Woods v.

8

Carey, No. CIV S–04–1225 LKK GGH P, 2009 WL 2905788, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2009)

9

(same).
Plaintiff’s Motion

10

B.

11

Plaintiff requests a copy of the transcript of the trial in this case at government expense.

12

Plaintiff states that he filed his notice of appeal on August 15, 2018, and that perjury will be

13

one of the grounds he will be raising.

14

Plaintiff has already received approval to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8), and

15

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

16

has not alleged that his appeal presents a substantial issue. The request merely states that

17

“[p]erjury will be one of the grounds he will be raising.” (ECF No. 178 at 1:19-20.) There is

18

no mention of the other issues on appeal, let alone an argument that the issues on appeal are

19

substantial. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied.

20

III.

21
22

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for a

transcript of his trial, filed on August 22, 2018, is DENIED.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 18, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2