Quiroz v. Cate et al

Filing 248

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 238 Motion for court order for fee waiver (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MARK ROBERT QUIROZ,

) No. C 11-0016 LHK (PR)
)
Plaintiff,
) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A
) COURT ORDER FOR FEE WAIVER
)
v.
)
)
)
ROBERT A. HOREL, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Short has filed a motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff has not yet filed a reply. Plaintiff has, however, filed a motion requesting that the court
order plaintiff’s fee waived so that he may obtain a copy of his own deposition transcript so that
he may support the relevant parts of his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
(Docket No. 238.) The plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the in forma pauperis statute, does
not authorize the district court to cause the payment of the cost of a deposition transcript for a
pauper-plaintiff. Also, the court is unaware of any authority to require a private court reporter to
subsidize the cost of a deponent’s litigation efforts. Plaintiff’s motion therefore is DENIED.
However, Short has produced exhibits in support of his motion for summary judgment. In
Short’s exhibits, Short provides four distinct and non-consecutive substantive pages from
plaintiff’s deposition transcript. Because defendant Short is relying on those portions of the
Order Denying Motion for a Court Order for Fee Waiver
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.11\Quiroz016depo.wpd

1

plaintiff’s deposition as evidence for his motion, and because it is more efficient for defendants

2

to produce a copy of plaintiff’s deposition, the court directs defendant Short to file (and serve on

3

plaintiff) a copy of the entire transcript of that deposition within fourteen days of the filing date

4

of this order.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

5/9/14
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Compel; Denying Request for Sanctions; Vacating Motion for Summary Judgment;
Denying Motion for Extension of Time as Moot

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.11\Quiroz016depo.wpd

2