Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00148/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00148-32/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN JONES, JR., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

JOHN J. HOLLENBACK, JR., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-148 OWW/DLB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS AT

GOVERNMENT EXPENSE (Doc.

401) 

Plaintiff Melvin Jones, Jr., proceeding in pro per, has

filed a motion for transcripts at government expense. Plaintiff

seeks transcripts for the following proceedings:

Voir Dire (All)

Opening Statements (All)

Closing Arguments (All)

Jury Instructions (All)

Pre-Trial Proceedings (All)

Other - Trial Testimony of All Witnesses

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 418 Filed 03/20/08 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

2

Plaintiff submits an affidavit under penalty of perjury:

I do not have enough money or other assets to

pay the pending Appeal FEES ($455.00) I have

NO CAR, NO SAVINGS; I own NO real estate, or

any other asset(s) for that matter. I also

am currently unemployed, and have no other

monthly income by which to pay said FEES. My

appeal (issues presented) will be on

ostensibly narrow grounds: (a) error as to

inadequate jury instruction (to include

failure to give Stipulated Facts) and (b)

Misconduct of defendant/defense counsel - the

flavor of which permeated and tainted the

entire trial proceeding and verdict with

undue passion and prejudice.

28 U.S.C. § 753(f) provides in pertinent part:

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).

“[A] ‘substantial question’ is one that is ‘fairly

debatable,’ ... or ‘fairly doubtful,’ ... ‘In short, a

“substantial question” is one of more substance that would be

necessary to a finding that it was not frivolous.’” United States

v. Handy, 761 F.2d 1279, 1283 (9 Cir.1985). th

Plaintiff’s request for transcripts is much more extensive

than the issues Plaintiff identifies he will assert on appeal. 

Plaintiff’s request for transcripts of all pretrial proceedings

is not reasonably related to the issues he identifies for appeal,

nor is his request for a transcript of voir dire. 

Plaintiff’s intended appeal on alleged errors in jury

instructions does not present a “substantial question” within the

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 418 Filed 03/20/08 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

3

meaning of Section 753(f). As explained in detail in the

Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for New

Trial (Doc. 398, pp.15-24), Plaintiff’s claims of instructional

error are either waived because of Plaintiff’s failure to request

instructions or object to instructions, constituted invited

error, or were frivolous. 

Plaintiff’s intended appeal on alleged misconduct of

Defendant and/or Defendant’s counsel “which permeated and tainted

the entire trial proceeding and verdict with undue passion and

prejudice” also does not raise a “substantial question” within

the meaning of Section 753(f). As explained in detail in the

Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for New

Trial (Doc. 398, pp.8-14), Plaintiff’s claims of misconduct based

on alleged violations of orders on motions in limine are totally

unfounded; his claim of misconduct because of improper closing

argument is without merit because of Plaintiff’s failure to

object and because the argument was not improper. Plaintiff’s

claims of defense misconduct during discovery did not clearly and

convincingly demonstrate that the defense verdict was obtained by

the alleged misconduct, nor was Plaintiff prevented from fully

and fairly presenting his case to the jury. Although the

Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for New

Trial did not address the merits of Plaintiff’s claim of alleged

misconduct based on Defendant’s incorrect characterization of one

of Plaintiff’s prior convictions, as recited in the Memorandum

Decision and Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 418 Filed 03/20/08 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

4

Fees, Plaintiff made no effort to correct this alleged

mischaracterization of which he had to be aware either before or

during trial and waited until months after the defense verdict to

raise this alleged mischaracterization. Plaintiff himself first 

introduced evidence of his prior convictions at trial.

No issues that have merit and are not legally frivolous are

presented by Plaintiff. ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiff’s Motion for

Transcripts at Government Expense is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 418 Filed 03/20/08 Page 4 of 4