Opinion
No. CIV-02-1128-PHX-MHM (DKD).
November 8, 2005
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Petitioner's post-judgment request for a transcript (Doc. #131). The Clerk of Court charges $3.30 per page for any transcript. See Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees ¶ 4, foll. 28 U.S.C. § 1914. "The Supreme Court has declared that `the expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress. . . .'" Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976).
The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, authorizes the Court to pay for service of process on behalf of an indigent litigant and, in certain cases, to pay the costs of printing the record on appeal and preparing a transcript of proceedings. § 1915 (c)(2). Specifically, the in forma pauperis statute authorizes the Court to direct payment of the expense in "preparing a transcript of proceedings before a United States magistrate judge in any civil or criminal case, if such transcript is required by the district court." As Plaintiff is seeking the transcript for purposes of appeal, the in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the payment of the expense in preparing a transcript.
Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) provides that fees for transcripts furnished in other than criminal and habeas corpus proceedings to persons permitted to appeal as indigents will 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. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). However, on October 21, 2005, the Court found Mr. Slone's appeal was not taken in good faith. The Supreme Court has set out a two part test for section 1983 claims alleging prison officials were deliberately indifferent to an inmates safety, providing: (1) the deprivation must be objectively, sufficiently serious; and (2) the prison official must have had, subjectively, a "sufficiently culpable state of mind." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). Plaintiff has failed to allege any conditions of confinement which are objectively or subjectively sufficiently serious. Plaintiff neither alleges prison officials exposed him to any intolerable risk of attack nor has Plaintiff presented any evidence demonstrating Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm. Instead the undisputed evidence demonstrates Defendants investigated Plaintiff's claims and transferred him to another prison. Furthermore, in the instant motion, other than requesting the Court permit Plaintiff to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, Plaintiff fails to state any basis to support his appeal.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Portions of a November 1, 2002 transcript is DENIED. (Dkt. #131).