Balthrope v. Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services et al

Filing 79

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 5/3/2012 DENYING 74 Motion as to Plaintiff's request for payment of deposition expenses; DENYING, without prejudice, 74 Motion as to Plaintiff's request to conduct depositions inside this court. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ARIEL BALTHROPE,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:10-cv-3003-KJM-JFM (PS)

vs.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

17

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s April 26, 2012 “Motion for Court Afforded

18

Depositions.” Doc. No. 74. Plaintiff seeks a court-appointed stenographer for the depositions of

19

unidentified witnesses. Plaintiff’s request shall be denied because, although she is proceeding in

20

forma pauperis, the expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only

21

when authorized by Congress. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations

22

omitted). The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for a

23

court-appointed stenographer. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Wright v. United States, 948 F. Supp. 61,

24

61-62 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (parties proceeding in forma pauperis are responsible for payment of

25

discovery costs, including the costs of depositions, fees for court reporters and transcripts);

26

Papas v. Hanlon, 849 F.2d 702, 703-04 (1st Cir. 1988) (affirming an order requiring litigants
1

1

proceeding in forma pauperis to pay stenographer’s fees); Barcelo v. Brown, 655 F.2d 458, 462

2

(1st Cir. 1981) (in forma pauperis statute does not authorize a district court to order payment of

3

transcripts).

4

Plaintiff also seeks leave to conduct depositions in this court. This request is

5

premature. In light of this court’s ruling regarding compensation of deposition reporters, it is not

6

when or whether plaintiff will be conducting depositions.

7

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1.

Plaintiff’s April 26, 2012 request for payment of deposition expenses is

2.

Plaintiffs motion to conduct depositions inside this court is denied without

9

denied; and

10
11

prejudice.

12

DATED: May 3, 2012.

13
14
15
16

/014;balt3003.jo(8)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2