Corley v. State Of Louisiana Through Division Of Administration, Office Of Risk Management

Filing 292

RULING denying 290 Motion Requesting Waiver of Cost to Prepare Trial Transcript and Expedited Consideration; denying 290 Motion for Expedited Hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 12/7/2011. (LSM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IDELLA CORLEY
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 06-882-SCR
STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION,
OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT, ET
AL
RULING ON MOTION TO WAIVE COST TO PREPARE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT
Before the court is the Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Waiver
of Cost to Prepare Trial Transcript and Expedited Consideration.
Record document number 229.
Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal.1

The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, provides

in relevant part, as follows:
(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.
The in forma pauperis statute does not provide for a trial
1

Record document number 281.

transcript prepared at government expense upon the plaintiff’s
request.

Under subsection (c) this court may direct “printing of

the record on appeal if such printing is required by the appellate
court.”

The November 30, 2011 letter to the plaintiff from the

clerk of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals does not indicate that
the appellate court has required printing the record on appeal or
a trial transcript.2
Under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) this court or the appellate court can
require the fee of the court reporter to prepare a trial transcript
to 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).”3

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal and

then a Revised Notice of Appeal.

In her Revised Notice of Appeal

the plaintiff stated she is appealing the Ruling on Motion for
Summary Judgment and the subsequent Judgment.4 However, other than
identifying the ruling and subsequent judgment as the subject of
her appeal, the plaintiff has not identified any specific claim or
issue, finding or legal conclusion made in the Ruling on Motion for
Summary Judgment she intends to contest on appeal.5
2

Record document number 290, Exhibit No. 2.

3

Brown
v.
Daniels,
290
Fed.Appx.
467
(3rd
Cir.
2008)(appellate court ordered court reporter to prepare trial
transcript).
4

Record document number 280, Plaintiff Revised Notice of
Appeal; record document number 208, Ruling on Motion for Summary
Judgment; record document number 276, Judgment.
5

2011

Goodwin v. California Dept. Of Corrections Rehabilitation,
WL 115248 (N.D.Cal. 2011)(transcript request granted as
(continued...)
2

In her motion the plaintiff referred to “meaningful appellate
review of a district court’s decision to grant judgment as a matter
of law without the testimony that would support or refute that
determination.”6

After the plaintiff rested on her case-in-chief

the defendants made an oral Rule 50(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., motion for
judgment as a matter of law.
to

the

plaintiff’s

defendants.7

Title

The court granted the motion only as
VII

claims

against

the

individual

Plaintiff has presented no non-frivolous, reasonably

debatable basis for challenging this ruling.

There simply was no

“legally sufficient evidentiary basis” for the jury to find that
any individual defendant was the plaintiff’s employer for the
purpose of Title VII.8

Clearly, her employer for the purpose of

Title VII was the State of Louisiana.9
Consequently, this court cannot find that the plaintiff’s
appeal would not be frivolous, i.e. present substantial question.
5

(...continued)
plaintiff identified “reasonably debatable” issues for appeal);
Tuggles v. City of Antioch, 2010 WL 3955784 (N.D.Cal. 2010)(same);
Trevino v. Moore, 2010 WL 1169782 (S.D.Tex. 2010)(transcript denied
because plaintiff failed to explain how hearing transcript
necessary for appeal); Parker v. Ward, 2009 WL 3431394 (S.D.Tex.
2009)(transcript denied because plaintiff failed to identify issues
on appeal, appellate court had not indicated it required transcript
of any proceedings, and case resolved on summary judgment).
6

Record document number 290, p. 3.

7

Record document number 285, minute entry for October 27,

8

Rule 50(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.

2011.

9

Only employers, not individuals acting in their individual
capacity who do not otherwise meet the definition of employers
under Title VII, can be held liable under Title VII. Grant v. Lone
Star Co., 21 F.3d 649, 652 (5th Cir. 1994).
3

Moreover, since the plaintiff is appealing the summary judgment
ruling,

it

is

not

apparent

why

a

trial

transcript

would

be

necessary.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Waiver of Cost to
Prepare Trial Transcript and Expedited Consideration is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 7, 2011.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4