Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08005/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08005-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Joe Newman, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Show Low Police Department, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-08005-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 The Court previously granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status at the outset of this 

case when the only inkling as to the nature of Plaintiff’s claims was in his complaint. 

(Doc. 6). Since that time, this case has progressed through numerous motions, discovery, 

and a grant of summary judgment in Defendants’ favor. Plaintiff has appealed to the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Plaintiff now moves for the production of transcripts 

in support of his appeal at government expense. (Doc. 93). 

 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) provides: “Fees for transcripts furnished in other proceedings 

to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall also 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).” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that an order 

“directing production of a transcript at government expense pursuant to § 753(f) 

implicitly embodies a finding by the court that the appeal presents a substantial issue.” 

Henderson v. United States, 734 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir. 1984); accord Popescu v. City of 

San Diego, 2012 WL 37166, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2012). 

Case 3:13-cv-08005-JAT Document 96 Filed 09/17/15 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 

 The Court is now thoroughly familiar with the legal and factual theories of 

Plaintiff’s case, and finds that Plaintiff’s appeal does not present a substantial issue. 

Plaintiff failed to present evidence showing a disputed issue of material fact regarding the 

circumstances of his arrest. Plaintiff’s dogged insistence that the video of his arrest has 

been falsified is unsupported by competent evidence. The Court further finds that 

Plaintiff’s case is frivolous. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to a waiver of the 

transcript fees. 

 For the foregoing reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s motion for a waiver of transcript fees (Doc. 

93). 

 Dated this 17th day of September, 2015. 

 

 

Case 3:13-cv-08005-JAT Document 96 Filed 09/17/15 Page 2 of 2