James v. Benjamin et al

Filing 467

OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 465 motion requesting transcript(s) be prepared At government expense. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 7/6/2020. (mmcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION

Regan T. James,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Stephen Benjamin, in his official and
)
individual capacities; Daniel Hood, in his
)
official and individual capacities; Jeffery
)
Kraft, in his official and individual capacities;
)
Robert Webb, in his official and individual
)
capacities; John Doe 1, in his official and
)
individual capacities; John Doe 2, in his
)
official and individual capacities; John Doe 3,
)
in his official and individual capacities; John
)
Doe 4, in his official and individual capacities;
)
John Doe 5, in his official and individual
)
capacities; John Doe 6, in his official and
)
individual capacities; G.M. Gates, in his
)
official and individual capacities; Rafael
)
Rodriguez, in his official and individual
)
capacities; Rueben Santiago, in his official and
)
individual capacities; Melron Kelly, in his
)
official and individual capacities; Skip
)
Holbrook, in his official and individual
)
capacities; W. Mike Hemlepp, Jr., in his
)
official and individual capacities; Teresa
)
Wilson, in her official and individual
)
capacities; City of Columbia, South Carolina;
)
Walmart Corporation, Private Entity; David
)
Fultz, in his official and individual capacities;
)
Jimmy Sherman, in his official and individual
)
capacities; E.L. Sutton; Robert Allman; Jarod
)
D. Glover,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

1

C/A No. 3:17-cv-491-MBS-PJG

OPINION AND ORDER

I.

RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This civil rights action was brought by Regan James (“Plaintiff”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
1981,1983, and 1985. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on March 6,
2020. ECF No. 457. Plaintiff appealed the court’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit on May 4, 2020. ECF No. 460.
This matter is before the court on a motion for an order directing the preparation of
transcripts at the government’s expense, filed by Plaintiff on June 23, 2020. ECF No. 465. Plaintiff
asserts that in order to prepare briefing for the Fourth Circuit, he needs the court reporter to
transcribe recorded conversations Plaintiff had with law enforcement officials. Id. Plaintiff
previously submitted recordings of these conversations into evidence via USB thumb drive. Id.
As a general rule, a party requesting transcripts prepared at the government’s expense
must present “evidence of a particularized need for the records he [or she] requests.” United
States v. Farmer, No. 7:98-CR-0033, 2005 WL 8157454, at *1 (W.D. Va. Apr. 8, 2005).
“Particularized need” is defined as “a showing that the suit for which the transcript is desired is
not frivolous and that the transcript is necessary to decide the issues presented.” United States v.
Spivey, No. 4:01-CR-00786-CWH-1, 2013 WL 2490760, at *2 (D.S.C. June 10, 2013)(citing
United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 323–30 (1976))(emphasis added). Here, Plaintiff
states he possesses the recordings he requests transcribed on USB thumb drives, and that he
“cites these recordings” in briefing he submitted to the Fourth Circuit. ECF No. 465 at 5.
Plaintiff then states that the recordings “will need to be transcribed for the Circuit Court to
decide Plaintiffs appeal.” Id. at 6 (errors in original). Plaintiff simply asserts that the Fourth
Circuit will need transcripts to decide his appeal, but does not elaborate on this contention.
Should Plaintiff be concerned that the Fourth Circuit is unable to evaluate his recordings, the

2

court notes that the aforementioned USB thumb drives were mailed to the Fourth Circuit on June
26, 2020 for its consideration. ECF No. 466. Furthermore, Plaintiff has cited these recordings in
briefings without transcripts, indicating that he is able to cite the recordings without the aid of
transcripts. Plaintiff has not shown particularized need for transcripts.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing the preparation of transcripts at the
government’s expense, ECF No. 465, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United states District Judge
Dated: July 6, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina

3