Arellano v. Blahnik
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Outcome
- other — Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 1
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Raul Arellano v. R. Blahnik (2024-05-02) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion requesting free transcripts of a recent evidentiary hearing, clarification on the ability to file for reconsideration, and a free copy of the motion itself. The court denied all three requests, finding the transcript request premature, the reconsideration motion lacking a valid Rule 60(b) basis, and the copy request unsupported by a showing of denied access to the courts.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for free transcript of evidentiary hearing denied as premature“Therefore, the request for a free transcript is DENIED AS PREMATURE.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the requirement that a free transcript for appeal purposes requires a pending or authorized appeal in forma pauperis. Since the plaintiff had not filed a notice of appeal or an IFP application, the request was procedurally premature. |
Motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) denied“The Court has reviewed Docket No. 216 and sees no basis for relief under 60(b).” | agree with court The court correctly identified that Rule 60(b) requires a showing of exceptional circumstances or specific grounds (such as mistake, fraud, or newly discovered evidence). The plaintiff merely re-argued the facts and findings of the court without identifying a valid legal ground for relief, which is insufficient to warrant reconsideration. |
Request for free copy of motion denied“Plaintiff has not shown he has been denied access to obtaining his own copy and, therefore, his request for a copy of Docket No. 216 is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly distinguished between the constitutional right of access to the courts and the right to free photocopying. Citing Ninth Circuit precedent, the court noted that prisoners must demonstrate that they have been denied access to the courts (e.g., inability to obtain copies despite reasonable efforts) to receive free copies. The plaintiff failed to make this showing. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the prerequisites for free transcripts (pending IFP appeal), the high bar for Rule 60(b) relief (exceptional circumstances/specific grounds), and the limits of the right of access to the courts regarding photocopying (no right to free copies without a showing of denied access). The citations are appropriate and the reasoning directly addresses the plaintiff's requests.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL ARRELLANO, Case No.: 16cv2412-CAB-DHB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. TRANSCRIPTS, RECONSIDERATION AND COPIES 14 BLAHNIK, [Doc. No. 216] 15 Defendant. 16 17 On October 4, 2021, this Court held an evidentiary hearing regarding whether 18 Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies. [Doc. No. 211.] The Court found that 19 Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies and dismissed the case with 20 prejudice. [Doc. No. 213.] On October 4, 2021, a Clerk’s Judgment was issued in favor 21 of Defendant. [Doc. No. 214.] 22 On October 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a “Motion (1) to receive transcripts of the 23 evidentiary hearing so I can properly create an effective appeal; (2) I would like to know 24 if I can file a motion for rehearing or reconsideration regarding the outcome of 25 evidentiary hearing or Fed. R. 60(b), (3) copy of these motion. “ [Doc. No. 216]. For the 26 reasons set forth below, all three requests are DENIED. 27 / / / / / 28 / / / / / 1 1. Transcripts. 2 Plaintiff requests a free copy of the transcript of the evidentiary hearing held on 3 October 4, 2021. Before a free transcript can be furnished, appeal to the Court of 4 Appeals from judgment of the District Court in a civil proceeding must be permitted in 5 forma pauperis, and required certification must be made. Maloney v. E.I. DuPont de 6 Nemours & Co., 396 F.2d 939, 940 (D.C. Cir. 1967); Franks v. Kirk, No. 1:15-cv-00401- 7 EPG (PC), 2019 WL 249518, *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2019). To date, Plaintiff has not 8 filed a notice of appeal, nor a request to appeal in forma pauperis. Therefore, the request 9 for a free transcript is DENIED AS PREMATURE. 10 2. Rule 60/Reconsideration. 11 While Plaintiff states that he “would like to know if I can file” a motion for 12 reconsideration, the Court deems Docket No. 216 to be an actual motion for 13 reconsideration under Fed.R. 60(b). 14 Rule 60 provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a showing 15 of “exceptional circumstances.” Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 16 (9th Cir. 1994). The Rule identifies six permissible grounds for relief from a final 17 judgment, order, or proceeding, namely: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 18 neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been 19 discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud by the adverse party; 20 (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) and other reason justifying 21 relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Further, the Rule provides that a motion brought under it 22 “must be made within a reasonable time – and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a 23 year after the entry of judgment or order of the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 60(c). 25 Here, Plaintiff does not identify which ground for relief he seeks, nor does he state 26 a basis for relief under Rule 60(b). Rather, Plaintiff merely describes testimony given 27 during the evidentiary hearing (as he remembers it) and then quarrels with the Court’s fact- 28 finding decision. The Court has reviewed Docket No. 216 and sees no basis for relief under 1 60(b). Plaintiff is free to appeal this Court’s rulings and findings to the Court of 2 || Appeals. 3 3. Copies. 4 Plaintiff requests a copy of Docket No. 216 because he is not sure when he will be 5 || able to get a copy at the prison law library. While “prisoners have a constitutional right of 6 || access to the courts,” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977), there is no constitutional 7 || right to receive photocopies free of charge. Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 8 || 1990), overruled on other grounds by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). The rule 9 || prohibiting free photocopies is the same for plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis. See In 10 Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990) (Title 28 U.S.C. section 1915 “waives 11 ‘prepayment of fees and costs and security ...’ [but] does not give the litigant a right 12 ||to have documents copied and returned to him at government expense). Plaintiff has not 13 || shown he has been denied access to obtaining his own copy and, therefore, his request for 14 ||a copy of Docket No. 216 is DENIED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: October 19, 2021 € 17 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28