Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01715/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01715-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

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

1

 The court notes that plaintiff also filed on September 4, 2007, a form requesting a

transcript of the December 20, 2006, hearing in this case. To the extent plaintiff filed that

request under the same theories articulated in the present motion, it is denied for the reasons set

forth below. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE RHODES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1715 MCE EFB PS

vs.

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS 

CORPORATION, et al., 

ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

This action, in which the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, was referred to the undersigned

under Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This case was closed on

August 1, 2007, when the case was dismissed and judgment was entered. Plaintiff has filed an

notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Apparently related

to that appeal, plaintiff has filed a “motion for transcripts at government expense by the United

States Criminal Justice Act.”1

 

In his motion, plaintiff cites “an exception to the general rule that parties are required to

pay for transcripts for a party who appeals under the Criminal Just Act.” Although it is true that

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 169 Filed 10/02/07 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

2

under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, the government is, under certain

circumstances, required to furnish an indigent appellant with a transcript of a prior proceeding

related to a criminal prosecution, United States v. Maccollom, 426 U.S. 317, 320 (1976); United

States v. Rosales-Lopez, 617 F.2d 1349, 1355 (9th Cir. 1980), those circumstances do not apply

here. Plaintiff is appealing the dismissal of his civil lawsuit for employment discrimination. 

 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). The in forma

pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for investigators, witnesses,

or copies of court documents including transcripts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Moreover, on August

16, 2007, the district judge denied plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

Plaintiff’s request is therefore denied. 

DATED: October 2, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 169 Filed 10/02/07 Page 2 of 2