Ferguson v. Morgan et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying 61 Motion for Transcript. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 01/07/2018. (mm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
JAMES FERGUSON
V.

PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO. 3:16-cv-00237- CWR-FKB

TONYA MORGAN, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

On October 23, 2017, this Court granted Plaintiff James Ferguson’s motion seeking in
forma pauperis status before the Court of Appeals. See Docket No. 60. Currently before the
Court is Plaintiff’s motion filed on November 13, 2017, requesting the Court to transcribe the
January 18, 2017 omnibus hearing for appellate review. Docket No. 61. The motion is denied.
28 U.S.C. §753(f) provides, in part, that “[f]ees for transcripts furnished in other
proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall also 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).” To succeed on a motion for production of transcripts at government
expense, a party must also show why the transcripts are necessary for proper disposition of his
appeal. Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 293 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Harvey v. Andrist, 754
F.2d 569, 571 (5th Cir. 1985). In Harvey, the district court granted the appellant in forma
pauperis status, but did not order a free transcript for the appeal. In affirming the district court on
appeal, the Fifth Circuit stated that “[the appellant] . . . demonstrated no particular need for a
transcript nor has he raised a substantial question. . . . Moreover, in his briefs before this court,
he has failed to bring to our attention any facts that might require close examination of the trial
transcript.” Id. at 571 (citations omitted).

As in Harvey, Plaintiff has requested transcription of a trial proceeding, yet has failed to
demonstrate how the transcript is necessary to effectively litigate his appeal and has not provided
the Court with any facts for which a close examination of the trial transcript is warranted. Nor
has Plaintiff shown that his appeal is not frivolous and presents a substantial question.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden for obtaining a transcript at
government expense. The motion is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 7th day of January, 2018.

s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE