Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-01128/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-01128-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Clinton Joseph Slone, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Warden Ivan Bartos; Officer Stemple;

Sargent Farley; and Dora Schriro, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV-02-1128-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s post-judgment request for a transcript (Doc.

#131). The Clerk of Court charges $3.30 per page for any transcript. See Judicial Conference

Schedule of Fees ¶ 4, foll. 28 U.S.C. § 1914. “The Supreme Court has declared that ‘the

expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized

by Congress . . . .’” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United

States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976).

 The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, authorizes the Court to pay for

service of process on behalf of an indigent litigant and, in certain cases, to pay the costs of

printing the record on appeal and preparing a transcript of proceedings. § 1915 (c)(2).

Specifically, the in forma pauperis statute authorizes the Court to direct payment of the

expense in “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.” As Plaintiff is

Case 2:02-cv-01128-MHM-DKD Document 133 Filed 11/09/05 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 -

seeking the transcript for purposes of appeal, the in forma pauperis statute does not authorize

the payment of the expense in preparing a transcript.

Additionally, 28 U.S.C. §753(f) provides that fees for transcripts furnished in other

than criminal and habeas corpus proceedings to persons permitted to appeal as indigents will

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. 28 U.S.C. §753(f). However, on October 21,

2005, the Court found Mr. Slone’s appeal was not taken in good faith. The Supreme Court

has set out a two part test for section 1983 claims alleging prison officials were deliberately

indifferent to an inmates safety, providing: (1) the deprivation must be objectively,

sufficiently serious; and (2) the prison official must have had, subjectively, a "sufficiently

culpable state of mind." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). Plaintiff has failed to

allege any conditions of confinement which are objectively or subjectively sufficiently

serious. Plaintiff neither alleges prison officials exposed him to any intolerable risk of attack

nor has Plaintiff presented any evidence demonstrating Defendants were deliberately

indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm. Instead the undisputed evidence demonstrates

Defendants investigated Plaintiff's claims and transferred him to another prison. Furthermore,

in the instant motion, other than requesting the Court permit Plaintiff to proceed on appeal

in forma pauperis, Plaintiff fails to state any basis to support his appeal.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Portions of a

November 1, 2002 transcript is DENIED. (Dkt. #131).

DATED this 8th day of November, 2005.

Case 2:02-cv-01128-MHM-DKD Document 133 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2