From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meadows v. Porter

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 12, 2010
2:07-cv-00475-HDM-RAM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2010)

Opinion

2:07-cv-00475-HDM-RAM.

July 12, 2010


ORDER


On May 26, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion seeking production of trial transcripts in connection with his appeal of the judgment in this action (#143). On June 16, 2010, the court ordered plaintiff to supplement his motion to set forth the basis for his appeal and the reasons he needs trial transcripts in connection with the appeal. Plaintiff was ordered to file his supplement on or before July 1, 2010. As of this date, plaintiff has not filed any supplement.

There is no indication on the record that any transcripts have been made in this action. Thus, there is nothing the court can order be produced to the plaintiff. The court therefore construes plaintiff's motion as one for production of a transcript at government expense. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), "[f]ees for transcripts furnished in . . . proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall . . . be paid by the United States if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question)." Because plaintiff has failed to provide this court with the basis for his appeal and the reasons he needs the trial transcript, the court cannot determine that his appeal is not frivolous or that it presents a substantial question. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for production of transcripts at government expense (#143) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Meadows v. Porter

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 12, 2010
2:07-cv-00475-HDM-RAM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2010)
Case details for

Meadows v. Porter

Case Details

Full title:HENRY MEADOWS, Plaintiff, v. PORTER, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Jul 12, 2010

Citations

2:07-cv-00475-HDM-RAM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2010)