Tierney v. Hamada et al
Filing
50
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE re 49 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 7/2/12. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Michael C. Tierney served by first class mail at the address of record on July 2, 2012.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MICHAEL C. TIERNEY,
#A0201434,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FRANCIS HAMADA, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIV. NO. 12-00117 SOM/RLP
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TRANSCRIPTS AT GOVERNMENT
EXPENSE
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE
Plaintiff Michael C. Tierney is a prisoner proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) with this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On May 31, 2012, the court
denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Dental Treatment.
#32.
ECF
On June 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a notice of interlocutory
appeal of this decision and now moves for transcripts of the
hearing on his Motion.
Expense, ECF #49.
Mot. for Transcripts at Government
For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion
is DENIED.
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
A litigant who has been granted in forma pauperis
status may move to have transcripts produced at government
expense.
See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f); McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d
1500, 1511–12 (9th Cir. 1991) vacated on other grounds by
Helling v. McKinney, 502 U.S. 903 (1991).
The court considers
two statutes to determine a request to prepare transcripts at the
government’s expense.
First, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) defines the
limited circumstances under which the court can direct the
government to pay for transcripts for a litigant proceeding in
forma pauperis.
(c) Upon the filing of an affidavit in accordance with
subsections (a) and (b) and the prepayment of any
partial filing fee as may be required under subsection
(b), the court may direct payment by the United States
of the expenses of (1) printing the record on appeal in
any civil or criminal case, if such printing is
required by the appellate court; (2) preparing a
transcript of proceedings before a United States
magistrate judge in any civil or criminal case, if such
transcript is required by the district court, in the
case of proceedings conducted under section 636(b) of
this title or under section 3401(b) of title 18, United
States Code; and (3) printing the record on appeal if
such printing is required by the appellate court, in
the case of proceedings conducted pursuant to section
636(c) of this title. Such expenses shall be paid when
authorized by the Director of the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(c).
Second, 28 U.S.C. § 753 allows the court to order the
government to pay for transcripts if “the trial judge or a
circuit judge certifies that the suit or appeal is not frivolous
and that the transcript is needed to decide the issue presented
by the suit or appeal.”
28 U.S.C. § 753(f).
A request for a
transcript at government expense should not be granted unless the
appeal presents a substantial question.
Henderson v. United
States, 734 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir. 1984).
//
//
2
II.
DISCUSSION
Based on the evidence received at the hearing on
Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Dental Treatment, the court
finds that an appeal of this matter is wholly without merit and,
therefore, frivolous.
United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv.,
314 F.3d 995, 1003 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Amwest Mortgage
Corp. v. Grady, 925 F.2d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir. 1991)); see also In
re George, 322 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that “[a]n
appeal is frivolous if the results are obvious, or the arguments
of error are wholly without merit”).
Moreover, Plaintiff fails
to specify any basis for this appeal or proffer arguments why a
transcript is needed.
Thus, Plaintiff’s appeal does not present
a substantial question.
III.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion for Transcripts at Government
Expense is DENIED. Plaintiff may renew his request for
transcripts with the appellate court by filing a motion in that
court if he wishes.
Plaintiff is also notified that the
3
appellate court has access to the court’s file in this case, and
will request any necessary documents that are in the record
directly from this court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, July 2, 2012.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge
Tierney v. Hamada, et al., Civ. No. 12-00117 SOM-RLP; Order Denying Motion for
Transcripts at Government Expense; psa/Non-dsp Ords/dmp/2012/Tierney 12-117 som (dny
transcripts)
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?