Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00937/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00937-23/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

THOMAS L. GOFF,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

GAMEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00937-AWI-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

REQUESTING PARTIAL COURT

TRANSCRIPTS AT GOVERNMENT 

EXPENSE

(ECF NO. 100)

Thomas Goff (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was 

dismissed for failure to prosecute on November 8, 2019. (ECF Nos. 89 & 90). 

On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting partial court transcripts at 

government expense. (ECF No. 100). For the reasons described below, Plaintiff’s motion will 

be denied.

I. LEGAL STANDARD FOR PREPARATION OF A TRANSCRIPT AT THE 

GOVERNMENT’S EXPENSE

28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) states that, “[u]pon 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00937-KES-EPG Document 102 Filed 01/10/20 Page 1 of 4
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

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 the Administrative Office of 

the United States Courts.” 

Section 1915(a) states:

(1) Subject to subsection (b), any court of the United States may authorize the 

commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or 

criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a 

person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such 

prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security 

therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and 

affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress.

(2) A prisoner seeking to bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action 

or proceeding without prepayment of fees or security therefor, in addition to filing 

the affidavit filed under paragraph (1), shall submit a certified copy of the trust 

fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-

month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of 

appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner 

is or was confined.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), “[f]ees for transcripts furnished in [civil] 

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).” See also Maloney v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & 

Co., 396 F.2d 939, 940 (D.C. Cir. 1967); Henderson v. United States, 734 F.2d 483, 484 

(9th Cir. 1984). “A substantial question exists where the issue before the court of appeals 

is reasonably debatable.” Tuggles v. City of Antioch, C08–01914JCS, 2010 WL 

3955784 (N.D. Cal. Oct.8, 2010) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also

Randle v. Franklin, No. CV-08-00845-JAT, 2012 WL 201757, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 

2012).

Case 1:15-cv-00937-KES-EPG Document 102 Filed 01/10/20 Page 2 of 4
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

II. DISCUSSION

It is not entirely clear what Plaintiff is requesting. Plaintiff states that he is requesting 

“partial transcripts,” but then appears to state that he wants “[a]ll transcripts, motions, exhibits, 

and telephonic/in person conferences, oral and written, settlement offers by defense; prior 

application for appeal: 9th Cir. COA # 17-16932 (ECF #’s 14 to 34), then only ECF #’s 75 to 

87, as the Court had provided partial transcripts upon request on 12-11-19 (ECF # 91).” (ECF 

No. 100, p. 1). Later in the motion, Plaintiff only appears to request: “1) 9th Cir. COA Appeal 

# 17-16932[, and] 2) Eastern District ECF #s: 14 to 34, 66 to 68, 75 to 87....” (ECF No. 100, 

p. 3).1

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. First, it is not clear if Plaintiff is even requesting 

transcripts. Plaintiff states that he is requesting transcripts, but later in the motion only requests

docketed documents. Second, even if Plaintiff is requesting transcripts, Plaintiff failed to

identify any particular transcript that he believes is relevant to his appeal, and after reviewing 

the docket, it is not clear to the Court that there are any relevant transcripts.

As to Plaintiff’s request for docketed documents, those requests will be denied. 

Plaintiff has already received copies of the documents he is requesting, and Plaintiff has not 

explained why he needs additional copies or why he is unable to get those copies himself. 

Moreover, Plaintiff failed to explain how the documents he is requesting are relevant to his 

appeal.

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

 

1

In his motion, Plaintiff also asserts that “entry # 87” was “made confidential” contrary to a court order. 

(ECF No. 100, p. 2). Plaintiff is incorrect. The Court ordered both parties to submit confidential settlement 

conference statements (ECF No. 84, p. 2), and the docket entry at ECF No. 87 is Defendant’s notice of compliance 

with that order. 

Case 1:15-cv-00937-KES-EPG Document 102 Filed 01/10/20 Page 3 of 4
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

III. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion requesting 

partial court transcripts at government expense is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00937-KES-EPG Document 102 Filed 01/10/20 Page 4 of 4