Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00475/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00475-30/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY MEADOWS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PORTER, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:07-cv-00475-HDM-RAM

ORDER

On May 26, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion seeking production

of trial transcripts in connection with his appeal of the judgment

in this action (#143). On June 16, 2010, the court ordered

plaintiff to supplement his motion to set forth the basis for his

appeal and the reasons he needs trial transcripts in connection

with the appeal. Plaintiff was ordered to file his supplement on

or before July 1, 2010. As of this date, plaintiff has not filed

any supplement.

There is no indication on the record that any transcripts have

Case 2:07-cv-00475-HDM -RAM Document 145 Filed 07/12/10 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

been made in this action. Thus, there is nothing the court can

order be produced to the plaintiff. The court therefore construes

plaintiff’s motion as one for production of a transcript at

government expense. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). 

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

. . . proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis

shall . . . 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).” Because plaintiff has failed to

provide this court with the basis for his appeal and the reasons he

needs the trial transcript, the court cannot determine that his

appeal is not frivolous or that it presents a substantial question. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for production of transcripts at

government expense (#143) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: This 12th day of July, 2010.

____________________________ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00475-HDM -RAM Document 145 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 2