(PC) Gray v. Clark ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS EUGENE GRAY, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-0196 JLT SAB ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ) PRODUCTION OF TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS AT 13 v. ) GOVERNMENT’S EXPENSE ) 14 KEN CLARK, et al., ) (Doc. 132) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Thomas Eugene Gray sought to hold the defendants liable for civil rights violations pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The trial in this matter concluded on February 16, 2023, with a verdict in favor of 19 the defendants. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal, and now requests that the Court provide trial 20 transcripts at the government expense. (Doc. 132.) 21 A litigant who has been granted in forma pauperis status may move to have transcripts 22 produced at government expense. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). Furnishing transcripts at public expense is 23 governed by two separate statutes: 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(c), there are limited circumstances under which the Court can direct the government’s payment 25 of transcripts for a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), the Court to order 26 the government to pay for transcripts if (1) the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the suit or 27 appeal is not frivolous, (2) the transcript is needed to decide the issue presented by the suit or appeal, 28 and (3) the claim is substantial. See U.S. v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 325 (1976) (“The district court 1 || has the power to order a free transcript furnished if it finds that the ‘suit ... is not frivolous and that th 2 || transcript is needed to decide the issue presented...’ ”); Henderson v. U.S., 734 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cit 3 || 1984) (determining that a request for a transcript at government expense should not be granted unless 4 || the appeal presents a “substantial issue”). A claim is frivolous if the plaintiff can make no rational 5 || argument in law or facts to support his claim for relief. See Pembrook v. Wilson, 370 F.2d 37, 39 □□□□ 6 || Cir. 1966). A substantial question is defined as “reasonably debatable.” See Randle v. Franklin, 2012 7 || WL 201757, at *2 (E.D. Cal. January 23, 2012). 8 Plaintiff states he needs the transcripts to review and refresh his memory of the case. (Doc. 9 || 132 at 2.) However, Plaintiff does not provide specific information about why he requires the 10 || transcripts. There is no information provided concerning the basis for the appeal or how the 11 || transcripts will assist him on the specific claims to be raised in the appeal. Plaintiff's request does not 12 || fall under any of the three circumstances enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 753), which would allow for th 13 || court to order the government to pay for transcripts. Similarly, Plaintiff fails to meet the criteria for 14 || free transcripts established in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for a copy of 15 || transcripts is DENIED. 16 17 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: _ April 5, 2023 ( LAW ph L. wan 19 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28