Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02029/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02029-38/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff James W. Millner is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for production of documents, filed August 15, 

2016. 

On April 28, 2016, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Plaintiff 

exhausted the administrative remedies. On May 3, 2016, Defendants requested a copy of the transcript 

of the evidentiary hearing, and the transcript was produced on June 2, 2016. 

On July 13, 2016, Defendants filed a request to submit supplemental briefing on the issue of 

exhaustion of the administrative remedies in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent 

decision in Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850 (June 6, 2016). The Court granted Defendants’ request on 

July 15, 2016, and Defendants were provided fourteen days to submit a supplemental brief, and 

Plaintiff was granted twenty-one days from the date of Defendants’ filing to submit a response.

JAMES W. MILLNER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN BITER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-02029-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

[ECF No. 143]

Case 1:13-cv-02029-AWI-SAB Document 144 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In the instant motion, Plaintiff requests a copy of the transcript from the evidentiary hearing 

and a copy of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ross v. Blake, as he contends the prison 

does not have a copy of the recent decision. 

A litigant who has been granted in forma pauperis status may move to have transcripts 

produced at government expense. Two statutes must be considered whenever the district court 

receives a request to prepare transcripts at the government’s expense. First, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) 

defines the limited circumstances under which the Court can direct the government to pay for 

transcripts for a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis.

(c) Upon the filing of an affidavit in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) and the 

prepayment of any partial filing fee as may be required under subsection (b), the court 

may direct payment by the United States of the expenses of (1) printing the record on

appeal in any civil or criminal case, if such printing is required by the appellate court; 

(2) 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, in the case of 

proceedings conducted under section 636(b) of this title or under section 3401(b) of 

title 18, United States Code; and (3) printing the record on appeal if such printing is 

required by the appellate court, in the case of proceedings conducted pursuant to 

section 636(c) of this title. Such expenses shall be paid when authorized by the 

Director of Administrative Office of the United States Courts. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(c).

Second, 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) allows the Court to order the government to pay for transcripts only 

if “the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the suit or appeal is not frivolous and that the 

transcript is needed to decide the issue presented by the suit or appeal.” A request for a transcript at 

government expense should not be granted unless “the appeal presents a substantial issue.” Henderson 

v. United States, 734 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir. 1984). 

In this instance, the Court granted Defendants’ request to submit a supplemental brief in light 

of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ross. Defendants filed their brief supported by argument 

and citations to the decision in Ross and attached portions of the transcript from the evidentiary 

hearing. Under these circumstances, the Court finds a substantial issue involved that warrants 

production of the evidentiary transcripts at government expense to assist Plaintiff in drafting his brief. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(c)(2). Accordingly, the Court will direct the court reporter to provide Plaintiff a 

copy of the transcript of the April 28, 2016, evidentiary hearing at government expense. In light of 

Case 1:13-cv-02029-AWI-SAB Document 144 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

this ruling, the Court will extend the deadline for Plaintiff to submit a response to Defendants’ 

supplement brief.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the evidentiary hearing transcript at the expense of the 

United States government is GRANTED; 

2. The court reporter is directed to provide Plaintiff a copy of the transcript of the May 13, 

2015, evidentiary hearing at the expense of the United States government; 

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the United States Supreme 

Court decision in Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850 (June 6, 2016) (attached hereto); and 

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file a 

response to Defendants’ supplemental brief. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02029-AWI-SAB Document 144 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 3