Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00222/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00222-5/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

Plaintiff Curtis Renee Jackson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings, filed April 4, 2016. 

(ECF No. 32.) Because the Court does not need a response to Plaintiff’s motion, the Court elects to 

rule on the motion prior to the expiration period to file a response pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). 

In his motion, Plaintiff contends that Defendants served their motion for summary judgment 

filed on January 25, 2016, with only limited portions of the deposition testimony and Plaintiff is in 

need of a full copy of the deposition transcript to oppose Defendants’ motion. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 provides that when paid reasonable charges, the deposition 

officer must furnish a copy of the transcript or recording to any party or the deponent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

30(f)(3). Similarly, California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.510(c) provides that the deponent 

must obtain a copy of any deposition transcripts at his own expense. In addition, there is no statutory 

CURTIS RENEE JACKSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DYE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00222-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

STAY PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COPY OF 

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT

[ECF No. 32]

Case 1:14-cv-00222-LJO-SAB Document 33 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 2
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

requirement for the government to provide a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis with copies of a 

deposition transcript. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); see also Whittenberg v. Roll, No. 2:04-cv-2313 FCD 

JFM, 2006 WL 657381 at *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2006) (denying plaintiff’s motion to compel 

defendant to provide him with a copy of the deposition transcript free of charge). 

Plaintiff’s motion for a complimentary copy of the deposition transcript must be denied. As 

stated above, the Court cannot order the court reporter, defense counsel, or defendants, to provide 

Plaintiff a copy of the deposition transcript free of charge. Plaintiff must obtain the deposition 

transcript from the officer before whom the deposition was taken on October 6, 2015. See Boston v. 

Garcia, No. 2:10-cv-1782 KJM DAD, 2013 WL 1165062 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013) (denying 

plaintiff’s request for a court order directing the defendant to provide him with a copy of his 

deposition transcript). Accordingly, as there is no basis to provide Plaintiff a free copy of the 

deposition transcript, Plaintiff’s request to stay the proceedings and direct defense counsel to provide a 

copy of the complete deposition transcript is DENIED. Plaintiff is advised that his opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is presently due on or before April 27, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00222-LJO-SAB Document 33 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 2