Chacoan v. Rohrer et al

Filing 217

MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 5/31/2012 DENYING plaintiff's 213 Motion for transcripts to be provided at government expense. Clerk directed to serve a copy of Order on United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit. [cc: 9th Circuit] (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HIPOLITO M. CHACOAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:05-cv-02276-MCE-KJN

v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DR. ROHRER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

----oo0oo----

18
19

This case proceeded to a jury trial on January 30, 2012. On

20

February 3, 2012, the jury reached a verdict in favor of

21

Defendants Dr. Traquina and Dr. Naku.

22

court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

23

a notice of appeal on April 11, 2012.

On March 27, 2012, the
Plaintiff filed

24

Plaintiff subsequently requested production of his jury

25

trial transcripts at government expense for use in his appeal to

26

the Ninth Circuit (ECF No. 213).

27

///

28

///
1

1

Production of transcripts at government expense for an appellant

2

permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil case is proper

3

if a judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous and

4

presents a substantial question.

5

28 U.S.C. § 753(f).

6

expense should not be granted unless the appeal presents a

7

substantial question.

8

484 (9th Cir. 1984).

9

A request for a transcripts at government

Henderson v. United States, 734 F.2d 483,

While plaintiff is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis,

10

his appeal does not present a substantial question.

Plaintiff

11

appeals on two grounds: (1) the court should have given

12

Plaintiff’s requested jury instruction regarding the elements of

13

supervisory liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983")

14

because of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in

15

652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011); and (2) the court should have

16

given Plaintiff’s requested instruction regarding what

17

constitutes a serious medical need for purpose of Section 1983

18

liability.

19

Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, the decision in Starr did not

20

change the contours of supervisory liability under Section 1983;

21

it merely held that the United States Supreme Court's ruling in

22

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) did not eliminate

23

supervisory liability from the scope of Section 1983.

24

the court’s decision to not give Plaintiff’s requested

25

instruction regarding what constitutes a serious medical need is

26

of no moment because Defendants did not dispute that Plaintiff

27

suffered from a serious medical need.

28

therefore does not present a substantial question.

Starr v. Baca,

As the court explained in detail in its order on

2

Moreover,

Plaintiff’s appeal

1

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for transcripts to be

2

provided at government expense is now DENIED.

3

Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on the United

4

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

5
6
7
8

The Clerk of the

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 31, 2012
________________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3