Poole v. Randle et al

Filing 83

ORDER DENYING 74 MOTION For Report of Proceedings Common Law Record and MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Peter Poole III. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 10/17/2011. (ssd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

PETER POOLE III,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DEBBIE ISAACS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 09-1070-GPM
APPEAL NO. 11-2903

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. He now seeks
preparation of the transcript at no charge for purposes of his appeal. He also seeks appointment of
counsel.
Relating to the transcript request, the relevant statute provides, in pertinent part, that “[f]ees
for transcripts furnished in [non-criminal, non-habeas corpus, and non-section 2255] proceedings
to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall … be paid by the United States if the trial
judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question).”
28 U.S.C. § 753(f). Thus, a court must determine that the appeal presents a “substantial question”
before allowing a transcript to be provided at no charge. Handley v. Union Carbide Corp., 622 F.
Supp. 1065, 1067 (S.D. W.Va. 1985). A “substantial question” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
§ 753(f) is one that is “reasonably debatable.” Ortiz v. Greyhound Corp., 192 F. Supp. 903, 905
(D. Md. 1959).
Plaintiff provides no specifics in his papers other than to disagree the Court’s conclusion that
Page 1 of 2

violation of state law does not, in this instance, rise to a constitutional violation. Because Plaintiff
has not shown that the Court’s disposition of the case is reasonably debatable, his request for
provision of the transcript at no charge is DENIED. Plaintiff shall return to the Clerk of Court the
form Seventh Circuit Transcript Information Sheet that was sent to him on August 19, 2011 (see
Doc. 76), whether or not he intends to order the transcript.
With respect to his request for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff makes no showing that he
has made any effort to obtain counsel on his own or been effectively precluded from doing so. See
generally Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Therefore, this request is
DENIED without prejudice to making a sufficient request in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 10/17/11
s/ ZA ctàÜ|v~ `âÜÑ{ç
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2