Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02476/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02476-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Leoncio Alfredo Sharpe, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sgt Ogar, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-2476-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiff, Mr. Sharpe, has filed a Motion Requesting the Release of Trial Transcripts

Regarding the Proceedings of Jury Day 2 Afternoon Session Held on August 13, 2008 (Doc.

#181). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a), the Court allowed Plaintiff to proceed in forma

pauperis. Plaintiff’s jury trial began on August 12, 2008 (Doc. #151). On August 21, 2008,

the Clerk of the Court entered Judgment on the jury’s verdict for Defendant Sgt. Ogar (Doc.

#172). Plaintiff has appealed from that Judgment (Doc. #176). 

Plaintiff now requests that the Court provide transcripts of the afternoon session of

Day 2 of the trial 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

Case 2:05-cv-02476-JAT Document 183 Filed 11/20/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

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) (parenthetical in original). The rule's purpose is

to prevent the waste of taxpayer dollars on transcripts for use in baseless appeals. The Court

therefore 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. 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). Plaintiff has 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 and nonfrivolous. The Court therefore will deny the motion without prejudice to

Plaintiff refiling to make the required showing that his appeal is nonfrivolous and presents

a substantial question.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting the Release of Trial

Transcripts Regarding the Proceedings of Jury Day 2 Afternoon Session Held on August 13,

2008 (Doc. #181) without prejudice to refiling to make the required showing.

DATED this 20th day of November, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-02476-JAT Document 183 Filed 11/20/08 Page 2 of 2