Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01350/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01350-18/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

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

JAMES EDWARD BOWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01350-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION 

FOR COPIES 

(ECF No. 62)

CLERK TO SEND PLAINTIFF COPY OF 

ECF No. 60 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action, now closed, proceeded 

against Defendants Diaz and Rodriguez on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to 

protect claim.

On February 26, 2015, the parties appeared for a settlement conference before 

Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison, and the matter settled. (ECF No. 57.) The action 

was dismissed pursuant to the parties’ stipulation on March 5, 2015. (ECF No. 61.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s March 18, 2015 motion seeking (1) “a copy of filed 

stipulation reflecting a $6,000 win” and (2) a copy of “a page or two” of the reporter’s 

transcript of the February 26, 2015 settlement conference.

Case 1:11-cv-01350-AWI-MJS Document 63 Filed 03/31/15 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

2

To the extent Plaintiff requests a copy of the stipulation, his request will be 

granted. The Clerk’s Office will be directed to send to Plaintiff a copy of ECF No. 60.

Plaintiff is advised, however, that the stipulation is not a settlement agreement, and does 

not contain any information regarding the terms of the parties’ settlement. No such 

document is contained in the Court’s docket. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff seeks 

confirmation of the terms of the settlement, his motion will be denied.

Plaintiff’s request for transcript also will be denied. A litigant who has been 

granted in forma pauperis status may move to have transcripts produced at government 

expense. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f); McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1511-12 (9th 

Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by Helling v. McKinney, 502 U.S. 903 (1991). 

Two statutes must be considered whenever the District Court receives a request to 

prepare transcripts at the government’s expense. First, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) defines the 

limited circumstances under which the Court can direct the government to pay for 

transcripts for a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis:

Upon 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 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.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(c).

Second, 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) allows the Court to order the government to pay for 

transcripts only 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); Henderson v. United States, 

Case 1:11-cv-01350-AWI-MJS Document 63 Filed 03/31/15 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

734 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir. 1984). A “substantial question” under § 753(f) is “one which 

is ‘reasonably debatable’ based on an objective standard.” United States v. Frost, 344 F. 

Supp. 2d 206, 208 n.1 (D. Me. 2004) (citation omitted). “In addition, the requested trial 

transcript must be ‘required for proper appellate review.’” Id.

The instant case is not a criminal case, there are no pending proceedings before 

the district judge pursuant to section 636(b), and Plaintiff has not appealed. Thus, there 

is no basis for ordering the preparation of transcripts at government expense.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for copies 

(ECF No. 62) is GRANTED IN PART. The Clerk’s Office is HEREBY DIRECTED to send 

Plaintiff a copy of ECF No. 60. In all other respects, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01350-AWI-MJS Document 63 Filed 03/31/15 Page 3 of 3