Opinion
20-cv-04058-MMC
08-06-2024
BRENDAN SCHULTZ, Plaintiff, v. THE HARRY S. TRUMAN SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is plaintiff's “Motion for Transcripts at Government Expense,” filed July 11, 2024. Defendant has filed a response, to which plaintiff has replied. Having read and considered the parties' respective written submissions, the Court rules as follows.
Plaintiff proceeds in the instant action pro se and in forma pauperis. His claims were tried to the Court in a six-day bench trial. By the instant motion, he seeks an order directing the court reporter to furnish him with a copy of the “complete trial transcript” (see Motion at 1:21), $850 of the cost to be paid by plaintiff and the balance to be paid by the United States.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753, a party appealing in forma pauperis is entitled to a transcript of the relevant proceedings at government expense “if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question).” See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). A substantial question exists “where the issue before the court of appeals is reasonably debatable.” See Tuggles v. City of Antioch, No. C08-01914, 2010 WL 3955784, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2010) (internal quotation and citation omitted). In making the requisite showing, a plaintiff “must identify the issues he intends to raise on appeal and explain why those issues are meritorious.” See Brown v. Kyle, No. 04-CV-6539, 2012 WL 6554158, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2012).
Here, plaintiff lists a number of issues he seeks to raise on appeal but, with one exception, has not explained why the issues are meritorious. The single exception is his assertion that the “Court did not entertain” one of his two claims (see Motion at 4:15), an assertion that, given the record, is not reasonably debatable. Under such circumstances, the Court cannot certify that plaintiff's appeal is not frivolous and presents a substantial question.
Plaintiff may, however, renew his request with the Court of Appeals.
Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion for Transcripts at Government Expense is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.