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)

Download PDF
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

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?