Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01009/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01009-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

PRENTICE WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

THE CITY OF TEMPE; 

TEMPE POLICE DEPT.; 

OFFICERS: MATT WARBINGTON,

MIKE WALLACE, MIKE WARREN, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-1009-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default (Doc. # 69), filed on July

11, 2006, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Copy of the TRO Hearing Transcripts (Doc. # 71), filed

on June 29, 2006.

I. MOTION FOR DEFAULT

First, Plaintiff moves the Court to enter default judgment against Defendants pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). On May 26, 2006, the Court issued an order in

response to Plaintiff’s first Motion for Default (Doc. # 41). It denied Plaintiff’s motion

because all Defendants answered on April 10, 2006. Plaintiff again moves the Court to enter

default judgment against Defendants. The Court denies the motion a second time, but will

explain the reasons for its denial to avoid confusion regarding this order. 

Case 2:05-cv-01009-JAT Document 76 Filed 07/21/06 Page 1 of 4
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

1

Plaintiff’s motion falls within the meaning of “other proceedings” that are

contemplated by §753(f), which describes the procedure for obtaining transcripts at the

government’s expense in the context of criminal or habeas proceedings. See 28 U.S.C.

753(f). 

- 2 -

Default judgment is unwarranted in this case. Rule 55(a) states, “When a party

against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise

defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise,

the clerk shall enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (emphasis added). In other

words, Rule 55 is a procedural rule that allows the Court to enter judgment against a party

that fails to diligently prosecute or defend its case. Here, Defendants submitted their Answer

(which is a pleading) to Plaintiff’s Complaint on April 10, 2006. Additionally, all

Defendants were represented in the Answer, and all have diligently defended themselves

before this Court with other filings besides the Answer, such as in their motions to dismiss.

Thus, the Court will not enter default judgment against the Defendants. 

II. MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS

Second, Plaintiff moves for a free copy of the transcripts of his temporary restraining

order (“TRO”) hearing. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court allowed the pro se

Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for injunctive

relief, and Plaintiff now requests that transcripts of the hearing be provided to him free of

charge pursuant to his in forma pauperis status. Because certain limitations apply to the

provision of transcripts furnished at the government’s expense, the Court must determine

whether Plaintiff is entitled to the transcripts. 

Congress addressed the issue of furnishing transcripts at public expense in 28 U.S.C.

§ 753(f). The statute provides that “[f]ees for transcripts furnished in other proceedings to

persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall also 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) (1996) (parenthetical in original).1

 The rule’s

purpose is to prevent the waste of taxpayer dollars on transcripts for use in baseless appeals.

Case 2:05-cv-01009-JAT Document 76 Filed 07/21/06 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

Therefore, the Court must determine whether Plaintiff’s proposed appeal has some merit

before it directs the government to pay for his transcripts. 

The Plaintiff must articulate some ground for appeal that requires transcripts before

the Court will subject the government to that expense. When proceeding in forma pauperis,

transcripts cannot be provided merely to allow [Plaintiff] to search for grounds for relief.

Bonner v. Henderson, 517 F.2d 135, 135 (5th Cir. 1975) (per curiam). Instead, Plaintiff has

the burden of demonstrating nonfrivolity and substantiality of the claims. See Maloney v.

E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 396 F.2d 939, 940 (D.C. Cir. 1967). Therefore, the Court

must examine whether the proposed appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial

question).

The language in § 753(f) suggests that the inquiries of frivolity and substantiality are

not identical. Corgain v. Miller states that a claim is frivolous “if the petitioner can make no

rational argument in law or facts to support his claim for relief.” 708 F.2d 1241, 1247 (7th

Cir. 1983). On the other hand, a “substantial” question is defined as “reasonably debatable.”

Maloney, 396 F.2d at 940 (citing Ortiz v. Greyhound Corp., 192 F.Supp. 903, 905 (D.

Md.1959). Regardless, the statute mandates that Plaintiff’s reason for obtaining free

transcripts be nonfrivolous and also present a substantial question. Therefore, the Court must

determine whether the Plaintiff stated a nonfrivolous, substantial reason for obtaining the

transcripts. 

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his proposed appeal is nonfrivolous or presents a

substantial question. In his motion, Plaintiff failed to state what issues he proposes to appeal.

Thus, the Court is unable to determine from the face of the motion whether his reason for

obtaining the transcripts is substantial. Nonetheless, the Court will look to the proceedings

to determine if any issue warrants furnishing the transcripts to Plaintiff. 

At the hearing, Plaintiff alleged that the City of Tempe and the Tempe Police

Department entered into a conspiracy to harass and threaten him. Plaintiff argued that, in his

prior experience, after filing a complaint against the city and the police department, those

entites would retaliate in order to prevent him from successfully suing them. Even if

Case 2:05-cv-01009-JAT Document 76 Filed 07/21/06 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

Plaintiff’s allegations of past misconduct are true, the Court saw no evidence of a current,

credible threat to Plaintiff that would warrant injunctive relief. In short, Plaintiff presents no

substantial question to appeal. Nothing in the motion or the proceedings before this Court

persuades it to direct the United States to pay for transcripts for Plaintiff’s proposed appeal.

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default (doc. # 69) and Plaintiff’s

Motion for Copy of the TRO Hearing Transcripts (doc. # 71) are denied.

DATED this 20th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01009-JAT Document 76 Filed 07/21/06 Page 4 of 4