Johnson et al v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District et al

Filing 575

ORDER Denying Oscar Grant, Jr.'s Request for Transcript Payment Waiver. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/8/2014. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

WANDA JOHNSON, et al.,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiffs,
v.
BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT,
et al.,

No. C-09-0901 EMC
CONSOLIDATED CASES
C-09-4014 EMC (Grant)
C-09-4835 EMC (Bryson, et al.)
C-10-0005 EMC (Caldwell)

12
13
14

Defendants.
___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING OSCAR GRANT,
JR.’S REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT
PAYMENT WAIVER

AND RELATED ACTIONS.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 573-2)

15
16
17

On July 3, 2014, Plaintiff Oscar Grant, Jr. filed a notice of appeal from the jury’s verdict in

18

this action. Docket No. 573. Attached to the notice of appeal was a request for an order waiving the

19

payment of transcript fees. The request asserted that “Plaintiff is currently incarcerated and unable

20

to afford the transcript expenses.” Docket No. 573-2, at 1.

21

“Transcript expenses are ineligible for waiver because court reporters must be paid for

22

transcription. Even if the court record is digital, the transcriber must be paid.” In re Lark, BAP No.

23

CC-09-1239, 2010 WL 6451889, at *4 (9th Cir. B.A.P. Feb. 4, 2010) (citation omitted). In this way,

24

a reporter or transcript fee is never “waived” – rather, in certain circumstances the United States

25

government bears the cost of that fee. See United States v. Worley, No. 1:09-MC-142, 2009 WL

26

2859037 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 3, 2009) (“In the truest sense, transcript fees are never waived; the cost is

27

simply bourne by the government rather than a party proceeding in forma pauperis.”). Section

28

753(f) of Title 28 provides that the government will pay transcript fees: (1) in criminal proceedings

1

to persons proceeding under the Criminal Justice Act; (2) in habeas corpus proceedings to persons

2

“allowed to sue, defend, or appeal in forma pauperis;” and (3) in all other proceedings where the

3

person is “permitted to appeal in forma pauperis” so long as a trial or circuit judge “certifies that the

4

appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question).” 28 U.S.C. § 753(f).

5

Section 753(f) thus makes clear that a party’s in forma pauperis status is an essential pre-

e.g., In re Price, 410 B.R. 51, 57 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2009) (“The grant of in forma pauperis status

8

under § 1915(a) is an essential element to qualifying for payment by the United States for transcripts

9

for the appeal.”); see also Britt v. United States, CIV. A. 12-00173-KD, 2013 WL 6499451 (S.D.

10

Ala. Dec. 6, 2013) (“The Court has previously ruled that Britt is not entitled to proceed in forma

11
For the Northern District of California

requisite to having the government bear the cost of obtaining transcripts in a civil proceeding. See,

7

United States District Court

6

pauperis on appeal; thus, Britt is not entitled to transcripts furnished at government expense.”);

12

Konarski v. Donovan, 763 F. Supp. 2d 128, 136 (D.D.C. 2011) (denying request for waiving

13

transcript fees because “petitioners paid the filing fee in [the] case and have not sought leave to

14

proceed without payment of costs”).

15

Plaintiff, who has been and continues to be represented by counsel, has not been granted in

16

forma pauperis status in these proceedings and has not requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis

17

on appeal. See Docket No. 1 (indicating the $350 filing fee was paid). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

18

request for a waiver of transcript fees is DENIED.

19

This order disposes of Docket No. 573-2.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED

22
23

Dated: July 8, 2014

24

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

2