Schultz v. The Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRENDAN SCHULTZ, Case No. 20-cv-04058-MMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE 10 THE HARRY S. TRUMAN SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Before the Court is plaintiff’s “Motion for Transcripts at Government Expense,” filed 14 July 11, 2024. Defendant has filed a response, to which plaintiff has replied. Having read 15 and considered the parties’ respective written submissions, the Court rules as follows. 16 Plaintiff proceeds in the instant action pro se and in forma pauperis. His claims 17 were tried to the Court in a six-day bench trial. By the instant motion, he seeks an order 18 directing the court reporter to furnish him with a copy of the “complete trial transcript” (see 19 Motion at 1:21), $850 of the cost to be paid by plaintiff and the balance to be paid by the 20 United States. 21 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753, a party appealing in forma pauperis is entitled to a 22 transcript of the relevant proceedings at government expense “if the trial judge or a circuit 23 judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question).” 24 See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). A substantial question exists “where the issue before the court of 25 appeals is reasonably debatable.” See Tuggles v. City of Antioch, No. C08-01914, 2010 26 WL 3955784, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2010) (internal quotation and citation omitted). In 27 making the requisite showing, a plaintiff “must identify the issues he intends to raise on 1 6539, 2012 WL 6554158, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2012). 2 Here, plaintiff lists a number of issues he seeks to raise on appeal but, with one 3 || exception, has not explained why the issues are meritorious. The single exception is his 4 || assertion that the “Court did not entertain” one of his two claims (see Motion at 4:15), an 5 || assertion that, given the record, is not reasonably debatable. Under such circumstances, 6 || the Court cannot certify that plaintiff's appeal is not frivolous and presents a substantial 7 || question.! 8 Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion for Transcripts at Government Expense is hereby 9 || DENIED. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 - 13 || Dated: August 6, 2024 : MAXINE M. CHESNEY 14 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' Plaintiff may, however, renew his request with the Court of Appeals.