Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01749/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01749-21/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY B. MOORE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OFFICER S. ZEPPA, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-04-1749 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR TRANSCRIPTS

Before the Court is plaintiff Gary B. Moore’s “Motion for Pro Per Plaintiff Transcripts

of His Trial Prepared and Sent to Him to be Used for Appeal of the Action,” filed April 12,

2010. Having read and considered the motion, the Court rules as follows.

To the extent plaintiff is of the view that he may obtain, by virtue of his in forma

pauperis status, a free copy of trial transcripts, plaintiff is incorrect. See Bonner v.

Henderson, 517 F.2d 135, 136 (5th Cir. 1975) (holding litigant proceeding in forma pauperis

“not entitled to a free copy of his transcript and record to search for possible trial defects

merely because he is an indigent”).

Further, although a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis may be entitled to an order

providing him free transcripts if a notice of appeal is filed, such order is proper only if a

court certifies that the appeal is “not frivolous.” See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (providing “[f]ees for

transcripts furnished in [civil] proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis

Case 3:04-cv-01749-MMC Document 192 Filed 04/15/10 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

shall [ ] be paid by the United States if the trial court or circuit judge certifies that the appeal

is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question)”). Here, plaintiff has not filed a notice

of appeal, let alone identified therein any “substantial question” that would be presented by

such an appeal. See id.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01749-MMC Document 192 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 2