Mascorro v. The City of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Mascorro v. City of San Diego (2026-07-31) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Eloy Mascorro, proceeding in forma pauperis, moved for an ex parte order appointing an officer of the court for a deposition and waiving the associated costs. The Court denied the motion, holding that IFP status does not entitle a plaintiff to a waiver of deposition fees or the appointment of a court officer for such purposes.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Appoint Officer of the Court for a Deposition“The Motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not extend to the waiver of deposition costs or the appointment of court officers for depositions. The cited authorities support the conclusion that such expenses are not covered by the statutory waiver of fees. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally correct and relies on consistent district court precedent regarding the limits of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, it relies exclusively on unpublished district court orders rather than binding circuit authority or the text of the statute itself, which creates a gap in the legal reasoning.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELOY MASCORRO, Case No.: 21-cv-1427-RSH-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 13 v. PARTE MOTION TO APPOINT OFFICER OF THE COURT FOR A 14 THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO; DOES 1 – DEPOSITION 6; HOUSE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS; 15 HOUSE OF NORWAY, [Dkt. No. 166] 16 Defendants. 17 18 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Eloy Mascorro’s (“Plaintiff”) Ex Parte Motion 19 to Appoint Officer of the Court for a Deposition (“Motion”). Dkt. No. 166. Specifically, 20 Plaintiff “requests that all costs of the court reporter be waived due to plaintiffs [sic] IFP 21 status.” Id. at 2. Furthermore, Plaintiff seeks “the appointment of a court officer to swear 22 in all persons participating in the deposition if the court denies the appointment/cost of the 23 court reporter.” Id. 24 Although Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, “plaintiff’s 25 indigent status does not entitle him to a waiver of fees” to cover the cost of a deposition 26 officer or court reporter. Goodlow v. Camacho, No. 20-cv-2038-AJB-AGS, 2021 WL 27 3516478, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2021), quoting Owens v. Degazio, No. 2: 16-cv-2750 28 JAM KJN P, 2019 WL 3253934, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 19, 2019) (“Plaintiff's in forma 1 || pauperis status also does not entitle him to a waiver of any of the costs associated with this 2 || form of deposition; instead, he must pay the necessary deposition officer fee, court reporter 3 || fee, and costs for a transcript.” As explained by the court in Jackson v. Woodford, No. CIV 4 O5CV0513-L NLS, 2007 WL 2580566, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2007), “‘Expenditure of 5 || public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress 6 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), Plaintiffs in forma pauperis status entitles him to a 7 || waiver of the filing fee and free service of process by United States Marshals, however, it 8 || does not entitle him to waiver of witness fees, mileage or deposition officer fees.” (citations 9 || omitted). 10 Plaintiffs IFP status does not entitle him to a waiver of fees for a court reporter or 11 officer of the court, nor does it entitle Plaintiff to court-ordered appointment of a court 12 ||reporter or officer of the court. The Motion is DENIED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: April 1, 2024 _— 15 Tbe! hh a 16 Hon.DavidD.Leshner SS 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28