Ruiz v. Romero

Filing 180

ORDER denying Without Prejudice 179 Motion for Transcripts. Accordingly, the Court is unable to determine at this time whether any issue(s) that will be before the Ninth Circuit presents a "substantial question," and consequently the Court necessarily DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion. Signed by Judge Todd W. Robinson on 5/4/2022. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (akr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROGELIO MAY RUIZ,

Case No.: 18-CV-330 TWR (MDD)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION FOR
TRANSCRIPTS

v.
L. ROMERO, et al.,
Defendants.

15

(ECF No. 179)

16
17

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Rogelio May Ruiz’s Motion: Request, Legal

18

Transcripts (“Mot.,” ECF No. 179), in which Plaintiff “request[s] complete . . . legal

19

transcripts [from his trial] with a[] copy translated in[to S]panish.” (See id. at 1.) Because

20

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, (see, e.g., ECF No. 11), the Court

21

construes the Motion as a request for transcripts at the government’s expense pursuant to

22

28 U.S.C. § 753(f), 1 which provides that “[f]ees for transcripts furnished . . . to persons

23

permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall . . . be paid by the United States if the trial judge

24
25
26
27
28

1

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks transcripts that are translated into Spanish, however, the Court DENIES
WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s request. See, e.g., Banuelos v. Weiss, No. 219CV2370JAMDBP, 2021
WL 2822421, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2021) (“Plaintiff is advised that the court cannot provide plaintiff
with translated documents.” (citing Ruiz v. Mobert, No. 1:17-cv-0709 BAM (PC), 2017 WL 6886093, *1
(E.D. Cal. July 5, 2017) (citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356 (1996)))); Torres v. Unknown, No.
CIVS070193MCECMKP, 2007 WL 781798, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2007) (“Plaintiff is advised that the
court does not provide free translation services in civil cases.”).
1
18-CV-330 TWR (MDD)

1

or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial

2

question).” See also Tuggles v. City of Antioch, No. C08-01914JCS, 2010 WL 3955784,

3

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2010) (“A request for a transcript at government expense should

4

not be granted unless the appeal presents a ‘substantial question.’” (quoting Henderson v.

5

United States, 734 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir.1984))). “A substantial question exists where

6

the issue before the court of appeals ‘is reasonably debatable.’” Id. (quoting Washburn v.

7

Fagan, No. C03-0869 MJJ, 2007 WL 2043854, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2007)).

8

Here, Plaintiff appeals the Judgment entered in favor of Defendants based on a jury

9

verdict for Defendants. (See generally ECF Nos. 172, 177.) Neither Plaintiff’s original,

10

(see ECF No. 172), nor amended, (see ECF No. 177), Notice of Appeal, however, mentions

11

the grounds for Plaintiff’s appeal. Accordingly, the Court is unable to determine at this

12

time whether any issue(s) that will be before the Ninth Circuit presents a “substantial

13

question,” and consequently the Court necessarily DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14

Plaintiff’s Motion. See, e.g., Hawkins v. Adams, No. 1:09-CV-0771-LJO-JLT, 2013 WL

15

4647910, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2013) (denying second motion for transcripts at the

16

government’s request where the “[p]laintiff omits any explanation for the basis of his

17

appeal[, and, a]s such, the Court to find that Plaintiff's appeal fails to present any substantial

18

question”).

19
20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 4, 2022
_____________________________
Honorable Todd W. Robinson
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2
18-CV-330 TWR (MDD)