Ruiz v. Romero
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Todd W. Robinson (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Rogelio May Ruiz, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, moved for legal transcripts from his trial to be provided at the government's expense and translated into Spanish. The Court denied the request for Spanish translation with prejudice and denied the request for government-funded transcripts without prejudice because the Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal did not specify grounds, preventing the Court from determining if the appeal presented a 'substantial question.'
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial with prejudice of request for Spanish translation of transcripts“To the extent that Plaintiff seeks transcripts that are translated into Spanish, however, the Court DENIES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s request.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that federal courts do not have a statutory obligation to provide translated documents for pro se litigants, and the cited authorities support this limitation. |
Denial without prejudice of motion for transcripts at government expense“Accordingly, the Court is unable to determine at this whether any issue(s) that will be before the Ninth Circuit presents a “substantial question,” and consequently the Court necessarily DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion.” | agree with court Under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), the government pays for transcripts only if a circuit judge certifies the appeal is not frivolous and presents a substantial question. Since the Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal did not state any grounds, the district court could not make the requisite determination. Denying without prejudice allows the Plaintiff to refile if grounds are later specified. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the statutory requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) and Ninth Circuit precedent requiring a 'substantial question' for government-funded transcripts. It properly distinguishes between the request for translation (denied with prejudice as not required) and the request for transcripts (denied without prejudice due to lack of stated appeal grounds). The reasoning is direct and supported by cited authority.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, Case No.: 18-CV-330 TWR (MDD)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS 14 L. ROMERO, et al., 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 179) 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Rogelio May Ruiz’s Motion: Request, Legal 18 Transcripts (“Mot.,” ECF No. 179), in which Plaintiff “request[s] complete . . . legal 19 transcripts [from his trial] with a[] copy translated in[to S]panish.” (See id. at 1.) Because 20 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, (see, e.g., ECF No. 11), the Court 21 construes the Motion as a request for transcripts at the government’s expense pursuant to 22 28 U.S.C. § 753(f),1 which provides that “[f]ees for transcripts furnished . . . to persons 23 permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall . . . be paid by the United States if the trial judge 24 25 1 To the extent that Plaintiff seeks transcripts that are translated into Spanish, however, the Court DENIES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s request. See, e.g., Banuelos v. Weiss, No. 219CV2370JAMDBP, 2021 26 WL 2822421, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2021) (“Plaintiff is advised that the court cannot provide plaintiff with translated documents.” (citing Ruiz v. Mobert, No. 1:17-cv-0709 BAM (PC), 2017 WL 6886093, *1 27 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2017) (citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356 (1996)))); Torres v. Unknown, No. 28 CIVS070193MCECMKP, 2007 WL 781798, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2007) (“Plaintiff is advised that the 1 a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial 2 || question).” See also Tuggles v. City of Antioch, No. C08-01914JCS, 2010 WL 3955784, 3 *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2010) (“A request for a transcript at government expense should 4 ||not be granted unless the appeal presents a ‘substantial question.’” (quoting Henderson v. 5 || United States, 734 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir.1984))). “A substantial question exists where 6 || the issue before the court of appeals ‘is reasonably debatable.’” Jd. (quoting Washburn v. 7 || Fagan, No. C03-0869 MJJ, 2007 WL 2043854, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2007)). 8 Here, Plaintiff appeals the Judgment entered in favor of Defendants based on a jury 9 || verdict for Defendants. (See generally ECF Nos. 172, 177.) Neither Plaintiffs original, 10 || (see ECF No. 172), nor amended, (see ECF No. 177), Notice of Appeal, however, mentions 11 grounds for Plaintiff's appeal. Accordingly, the Court is unable to determine at this 12 whether any issue(s) that will be before the Ninth Circuit presents a “substantial 13 || question,” and consequently the Court necessarily DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 Plaintiff's Motion. See, e.g., Hawkins v. Adams, No. 1:09-CV-0771-LJO-JLT, 2013 WL 15 4647910, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2013) (denying second motion for transcripts at the 16 || government’s request where the “[p]laintiff omits any explanation for the basis of his 17 || appeal[, and, a]s such, the Court to find that Plaintiff's appeal fails to present any substantial 18 || question”). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: May 4, 2022 — 21 [ odd (2 (re Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28