Orkins v. Dumas et al

Filing 64

ORDER denying 59 Motion for Court to Cover Costs of Deposition Transcripts. Signed by District Judge J. Garvan Murtha on 8/12/2011. (kak)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
Christopher L. Orkins,
Plaintiff,
v.
Edward Dumas, Jason Johnson,
Officer Post, Officer
Tarbell, Officer Prouty,
Officer Garusso, City of
Rutland,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

File No. 1:09-cv-237-jgm

ORDER
(Doc. 59)
Plaintiff Christopher Orkins, proceeding pro se, brings this
action claiming he was beaten by members of the Rutland Police
Department.

Before the Court is Orkins’ motion requesting that

the Court pay for transcripts of all depositions taken in the
case.
The Court has allowed Orkins to proceed in this case in
forma pauperis.

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

authorizes indigent persons to file suit without prepayment of
the filing fee.

It does not authorize payment of deposition-

related costs such as stenographers or copying costs.

See Morgan

v. Murphy, 2011 WL 2681148, at *1 (D. Conn. July 8, 2011); Murray
v. Palmer, 2006 WL 2516485, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2006)(“a
litigant proceeding in forma pauperis does not have a right to a
waiver of (1) the cost of a deposition stenographer, (2) the
daily attendance fee and mileage allowance that must be presented
to an opposing witness under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, or (3) the copying cost of any deposition
transcripts.”)(footnotes omitted); Smith v. Buffalo Bd. of Educ.,
1997 WL 613255, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 1997) (denying in forma
pauperis plaintiff’s request that the court bear the cost of
deposition transcripts).
“As the United States Supreme Court has made clear, the
federal government may be directed to pay the litigation expenses
of in forma pauperis litigants only when there is an express
authorization for the particular expense at issue.”

Smith, 1997

WL 613255, at *2 (citing United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S.
317, 321 (1976)).

Because “neither 28 U.S.C. § 1915 nor any

other statute authorizes this Court to direct payment for
deposition transcripts,” Orkins’ motion (Doc. 59) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Brattleboro, in the District of Vermont, this 12th
day of August, 2011.
/s/ J. Garvan Murtha
Honorable J. Garvan Murtha
United States District Judge

2