Handy v. City of Sheridan et al

Filing 218

ORDER denying 211 Plaintiffs Motion for Court to Allow Payment for Transcript at Government Expense without prejudice to refiling if and when the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit grants Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 3/10/2015.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 12BcvB01015BWYDBKMT

WYATT T. HANDY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SHERIDAN,
DET. KRISTINE BRYANT, Individual & Official, and
OFF. MIKE MONTOYA, Individual & Official,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Court to Allow Payment for
Transcript at Government Expense.” (Doc. No. 211, filed Mar. 4, 2015.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 783(f), Plaintiff seeks to have the United States Government pay the fees for a transcript of the
Motion Hearing held on February 6, 2013.
28 U.S.C. § 783(f) provides that fees for transcripts furnished in proceedings other than
criminal proceedings, habeas corpus proceedings, or proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and
2255 shall be paid by the United States where the person requesting the transcript is “permitted to
appeal in forma pauperis” and “the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not
frivolous (but presents a substantial question).” 28 U.S.C. § 783(f).
Here, Plaintiff has not identified any reason why he requires a transcript of the February 6,

2013 Motion Hearing. Cf. Ruark v. Gunter, 958 F.2d 318 (10th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (noting
that an indigent § 2254 petitioner does not have a constitutional right to access a free transcript in
order to search for error). The court would be warranted in denying Plaintiff’s motion on this
ground alone.
More importantly, Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel denied Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 because “Plaintiff has not shown the existence of
a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal.”
(Order, Doc. No. 215, filed Mar. 9, 2015.) Further, there is no showing that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Doc. No. 215.) Because leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is a prerequisite to
obtaining a free transcript under Section 783(f), Plaintiff’s Motion is properly denied.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Court to Allow Payment for Transcript at
Government Expense” (Doc. No. 211) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling if and when the
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit grants Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Dated this 10th day of March, 2015.

2