All Courts |
Federal Courts |
US Court of Appeals Cases |
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit |
2010-08 |
-
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 09-16224 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AUGUST 11, 2010 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY ________________________ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 07-00284-CV-5-RS/MD TERENCE C. EVERETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MARIANNA POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant, JONATHAN P. SMITH, MATT VICKERY, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _________________________ (August 11, 2010) Before EDMONDSON, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Terrence C. Everett appeals the district court’s decision denying his request for a transcript at the government’s expense, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 753(f). A party in a civil proceeding may obtain a transcript at the government’s expense if (1) he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and (2) “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). Everett has been granted leave to appeal in forma pauperis by the district court. Therefore, the only question is whether Everett’s appeal is not frivolous, but presents a substantial question. At bottom, Everett’s principal claim on appeal is that the district court’s factual findings are contrary to the weight of the evidence.1 Such a claim can neither be prosecuted nor reviewed in the absence of a transcript of the district court proceedings. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2). This kind of claim poses a dilemma: we arguably need to review the transcript to decide whether Everett is entitled to one. To avoid this circularity, we must first ask whether the representations made by Everett about what the record would reveal—if true—raise a substantial question. See Jaffee v. United States,
246 F.2d 760, 762 1 Like the district court, we flatly reject Everett’s assertion that the district court was biased against him based on his appearance at trial in a prison jumpsuit. Any appeal based on that alleged bias is frivolous. 2 (2d Cir. 1957). As we noted in our decision affirming the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, “the facts of this case are hotly disputed.” Everett v. Smith, No. 09- 10343, at 3 (11th Cir. July 21, 2009). In support of his appeal, Everett points to his own contrary testimony, which the district court rejected, and to purported conflicts between the defendants’ trial and deposition testimony. Everett’s representations are sufficient to raise a debatable issue, even if minimally so. We cannot evaluate the weight of the evidence or the alleged discrepancies in the defendants’ testimony without a transcript. Accordingly, the district court’s decision denying Everett’s request for a trial transcript pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 753(f) is reversed.2 AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part. 2 We affirm the denial of Everett’s request for a transcript of the post-trial hearing on Everett’s motion for sanctions. 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 09-16224
Citation Numbers: 391 F. App'x 846
Judges: Anderson, Edmondson, Martin, Per Curiam
Filed Date: 8/11/2010
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/3/2023