Yablonsky v. California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, requested the court waive the fees and costs associated with taking and transcribing a deposition. The court denied the request, holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not authorize the court to pay for deposition services.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Request to waive deposition fees and costs denied“Plaintiff’s request to waive deposition fees and costs, including transcription costs, is denied.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the statutory limitation of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which allows prisoners to proceed in forma pauperis but does not extend to paying for the costs of taking and transcribing depositions. The cited district court cases consistently hold that § 1915 does not require courts to subsidize litigation costs such as deposition fees. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally correct and relies on consistent district court precedent interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, it relies exclusively on unpublished district court orders (Westlaw citations) rather than binding circuit or Supreme Court authority, which is a gap in the legal foundation, though the result is defensible.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 John Henry YABLONSKY, Case No.: 18-cv-1122-AGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO WAIVE DEPOSITION FEES AND 13 v. COSTS (ECF 95) 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 15 CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, 16 et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff’s request to waive deposition fees and costs, including transcription costs, 20 is denied. Prisoners proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 may 21 use any discovery method set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “does not extend to the cost of taking and transcribing a deposition.” 23 Starkey v. Hernandez, No. 317CV01158JLSKSC, 2018 WL 2441554, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 24 31, 2018) (citation omitted); see also Arellano v. Hodge, No. 14-CV-590 JLS (JLB), 2018 25 WL 637854, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2018) (“§ 1915 does not authorize or require federal 26 courts to finance or subsidize a civil action by paying fees or other costs associated with 27 the litigation.”). Therefore, plaintiff “must bear the costs of recording the . . . deposition as 28 1 || well as transcribing the deposition.” Golez v. Potter, No. 09-CV-965 AJB WMC, 2011 WL 2 ||3021045, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 21, 2011). 3 Dated: January 25, 2021 5 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28