Singleton v. Kernan
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Kelvin Singleton v. Scott Kernan (2021-04-16) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, moved for the production of trial and pretrial transcripts at government expense to support his appeal of a judgment entered on a Rule 50 motion. The court granted the motion, certifying that the appeal is not frivolous and presents a substantial question.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's Motion for Transcripts (ECF No. 226) is granted.“As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion and authorizes the production of the reporter’s transcripts at government expense for the Final Pretrial Conference and the hearing on the Motions in Limine, jointly held on December 18, 2019, and for the jury trial on February 4, 2020 and February 5, 2020.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the statutory framework of 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c). It found that the appeal was not frivolous and that the transcripts were necessary to decide the issues presented, which satisfies the requirement that the appeal present a 'substantial question.' The court relied on the plaintiff's declaration and its own familiarity with the case to make this determination, which is a permissible method for a district court to assess the substantiality of an appeal when granting such a motion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and applies the relevant statutes and case law appropriately. It identifies the correct legal standard (substantial question, not frivolous) and applies it to the facts (plaintiff's declaration, court's familiarity). It does not skip any major arguments or authorities relevant to the specific motion for transcripts.
Opinion
5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 KELVIN X. SINGLETON, Case No. 16-cv-02462 BAS-NLS 9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 10 MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS v. 11 [ECF No. 226] G. HERNANDEZ, 12 Defendant. 13 14 Plaintiff Kelvin X. Singleton, a California state prisoner, sued Lieutenant Hernandez 15 for violating his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A jury trial was held, and on 16 February 5, 2020, the Court granted Defendant’s Rule 50 motion and dismissed the action. 17 (ECF Nos. 216, 219.) On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal.1 (ECF 18 No. 222.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Transcripts, seeking transcripts from the 19 hearing on the motions in limine, the final pretrial conference, and the trial itself. (See 20 Mot., ECF No. 226) 21 Litigants proceeding in forma pauperis status may move to have transcripts produced 22 at government expense. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f); McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 23 1511-12 (9th Cir.1991), overruled on other grounds by Helling v. McKinney, 502 U.S. 903 24 (1991) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion and noting that “[p]roduction of the transcript 25 at government expense for an appellant in forma pauperis in a civil case is proper under 28 26 U.S.C. § 753 if a trial judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous and presents a 27 1 Plaintiff was represented by counsel in his trial. However, Plaintiff reverted to pro se status upon filing 28 1 substantial question”). To rule on such a motion, a district court must consider 28 U.S.C. 2 || 1915(c) in addition to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f): 3 ... the court may direct payment by the United States of the expenses of (1) printing the record on appeal in any civil or criminal case, if such printing is 4 required by the appellate court; 0) preparing a transcript of proceedings before a United States magistrate judge in any civil or criminal case, if such 5 transcript is required by the district court, in the case of proceedings conducted under section 636(b) of this title or under section 3401(b) of title 18, United 6 States Code; and (3) printing the record on appeal if such printing is required by the appellate court, in the case of proceedings conducted pursuant to 7 section 636(c) of this title. Such expenses shall be paid when authorized by 3 the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
9 U.S.C. § 1915(c). If “the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the suit or appeal is 10 frivolous and that the transcript is needed to decide the issue presented by the suit or 11 || appeal[,]” the court may order the government to pay for the required transcripts. 28 U.S.C. 12 ||§ 753(f). However, this request should not be granted unless the appeal presents a 13 ||‘‘substantial question.” Henderson v. United States, 734 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir. 1984). 14 ||““Doubts about substantiality of the questions on appeal and the need for a transcript to 15 ||explore them should be resolved in favor of the petitioner.” Lee v. Habib, 424 F.2d 891, 16 || 905 (D.C. Cir. 1970). 17 Plaintiff submitted a declaration in support of his Motion explaining the relevance 18 the transcripts to the substantial questions he seeks to raise on appeal. (See ECF No. 19 ||226.) Based on the Court’s review of the declaration and its familiarity with this case, the 20 || Court finds that the appeal is not frivolous and the transcripts requested are necessary to 21 ||decide the issues presented. As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion and 22 || authorizes the production of the reporter’s transcripts at government expense for the Final 23 || Pretrial Conference and the hearing on the Motions in Limine, jointly held on December 24 || 18, 2019, and for the jury trial on February 4, 2020 and February 5, 2020. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 □□ / f 27 || DATED: March 12, 2020 ( yi G (Hophta. 6 How. Cynthia Bashant 28 United States District Judge oO.