Brown v. Eppler et al

Filing 36

OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Claire V Eagan that Plaintiff's Application to Obtain Copy of Transcript of Court's Hearing Without Payment of Costs (Dkt. # 33) is denied. Plaintiff may view the transcript free of charge at the computer terminal located in the Court Clerks office. ; denying 33 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (RGG, Chambers)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA DAVID L. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. J.D. EPPLER, RAY WILLARD, JANE DOE, JANET DOE, and METROPOLITAN TULSA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 09-CV-0466-CVE-TLW

OPINION AND ORDER Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Application to Obtain Copy of Transcript of Court Hearing Without Payment of Costs (Dkt. # 33). The Court previously permitted plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis in this action (Dkt. # 3). The Court also issued an Order stating that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal without further authorization by the Court (Dkt. # 32). Plaintiff appeals the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. # 25). The court reporter has prepared a transcript of the hearing on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. # 30).1 Plaintiff may view this document free of charge at the computer terminal in the Court Clerk's office. Plaintiff requests "an Order allowing him to have a copy of said transcript . . . without payment of costs . . . ." Dkt. # 33, at 2. "Fees for transcripts furnished in [civil proceedings not brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255] to persons permitted to appeal in forma

1

Preparation of the transcript at the United States' expense is, therefore, not necessary for the transcript's inclusion in the record on appeal.

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). At this time the Court cannot certify that plaintiff's appeal "is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question)." Plaintiff states that the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction was an "abuse of discretion." Dkt. # 33, at 1. Based on this description, the Court cannot certify that plaintiff's appeal presents a substantial question. Further, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction because he failed to introduce evidence that any defendant discriminated against him. See Dkt. # 25, at 10. An appeal from the denial of a meritless request for a preliminary injunction alone does not present a substantial question. Cf. Patel v. Wooten, 264 Fed. App'x 755, 758 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (determining that claims clearly without merit did not present substantial questions under § 753(f)).2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application to Obtain Copy of Transcript of Court's Hearing Without Payment of Costs (Dkt. # 33) is denied. Plaintiff may view the transcript free of charge at the computer terminal located in the Court Clerk's office. DATED this 2nd day of December, 2009.

2

Unpublished decisions are not precedential, but may be cited for their persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. 32.1: 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 2