Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01641/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01641-1/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

Honey R Siegal, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Cathie Jarboe et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-01641-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Deferral of Fees for Transcripts 

(Doc. # 7), which was filed on June 29, 2006.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court allowed the pro se Plaintiff to proceed in

forma pauperis. At Plaintiff’s request, the Court held an emergency hearing. The Court

denied Plaintiff relief, and Plaintiff now requests that transcripts of the hearing be provided

to her free of charge pursuant to her in forma pauperis status.

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

§ 753(f). It states that “Fees 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).

Case 2:06-cv-01641-JAT Document 11 Filed 07/21/06 Page 1 of 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

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 -

28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1996) (parenthetical in original).1

 The rule’s purpose is to prevent

taxpayer dollars from being wasted on transcripts for use in baseless appeals. Therefore, the

Court must determine whether Plaintiff’s proposed appeal has some merit before it directs

the government to pay for her transcripts. 

Plaintiff must articulate some ground for appeal that requires a transcript 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). Rather, 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 Plaintiff stated a nonfrivolous, substantial reason for obtaining the

transcripts. 

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

substantial question. In her motion to obtain free transcripts, Plaintiff failed to state what

issues she seeks to appeal. Thus, the Court is unable to determine from the face of the

Case 2:06-cv-01641-JAT Document 11 Filed 07/21/06 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

motion whether her reason for obtaining the transcripts is substantial. Nonetheless, the Court

will look to the proceedings to determine if any issue warrants furnishing the transcript to

Plaintiff. 

At the hearing, Plaintiff claimed, yet failed to sufficiently support, that she was the

target of a vast conspiracy to deprive her of property. The only claims brought by Plaintiff

that could have warranted federal relief were against the state or federal actors who

purportedly denied her constitutional rights. The substance of her allegations was that the

various governmental actors, including the Governor of Arizona, the Canadian Consulate,

and an agent of the Department of the Treasury, were part of the conspiracy to take her

property. The Court did not find the evidence of a vast conspiracy credible and found no

threat of immediate harm to Plaintiff that warranted emergency relief. Nothing in the motion

or the proceedings before this Court persuades the Court to direct the United States to pay

for transcripts for Plaintiff’s appeal. In short, the proposed appeal is frivolous and presents

no substantial question.

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Deferral of Fees for Transcripts (doc.

# 7) is denied. 

DATED this 20th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01641-JAT Document 11 Filed 07/21/06 Page 3 of 3