Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01350/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01350-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony M. Frank
Appellee
Dale Vu
Appellant

Document Text:

APPEALS F l ·.LI .u .~) ---.~" UNITED STATES COURT OF .,_..,:i Stt\tol\ \.~m._,rt.o\: ,\n,,,,~. , Un1~ Tr.-<·"" r"'~ ..... ~ .. ,•~. 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT -· 

DALE VU, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

ANTHONY M. FRANK, Postmaster General, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

AUG 10 1992 

DOBERT L. HOECKER 

'-" - Clerk 

No. 91-1350 

(D.C. No. 89-S-1913) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P . 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the district court 

denying him relief in his handicap discrimination action filed 

pursuant to 29 u.s.c. §§ 701-796i, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

as amended. On appeal, Plaintiff essentially argues that there 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-1350 Document: 010110276710 Date Filed: 08/10/1992 Page: 1
was insufficient evidence to support the district court's decision 

in favor 1 of Defendant. Defendant argues that because Plaintiff 

failed to provide a copy of the transcript of the trial, this 

court must affirm the district court's factual findings. Agreeing 

with Defendant, we affirm. 

This action was tried to the district court. After the bench 

trial, the district court orally entered findings of fact and 

conclusions of law based on the evidence. It concluded that the 

evidence was insufficient to prove that Plaintiff was handicapped 

or that he was not promoted solely on the basis of a handicap. 

Plaintiff filed a prose notice of appeal and motions to 

proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and for a free transcript of 

the trial. The district court denied the motions. 

In order to review the district court's findings and 

conclusions, a trial transcript is essential. Without a 

transcript, this court cannot review the trial court's factual 

findings and must accept them as correct. See Trujillo v. Grand 

Junction Regional Ctr., 928 F.2d 973, 976 (10th Cir. 1991); 

Rachbach v. Cogswell, 547 F.2d 502, 504 (10th Cir. 1976); see also 

Deines v. Vermeer Mfg. Co. , __ F. 2d 

4-5 (10th Cir. July 21, 1992). 

, No. 91-3044, slip op. at 

1 Plaintiff also argues that the district court did not address 

the issues of bad faith destruction of documents and refusal to 

produce documents. Apparently some of Plaintiff's Equal 

Employment Opportunity (EEO) records were lost in a post office 

reorganization and his EEO complaint was not investigated. 

Although we do not condone such misplacement of records, Plaintiff 

received de novo review of all issues in the district court. 

Additionally, Plaintiff failed to show how production of 

additional documents would have helped him prove that he was 

denied a promotion on the basis of a handicap. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-1350 Document: 010110276710 Date Filed: 08/10/1992 Page: 2
An appellant has the duty to cause the record on appeal to be 

transmitted to the court of appeals. Fed. R. App. P. ll(a). When 

the appellant intends to argue on appeal that the findings or 

conclusions of the district court are unsupported or 

the evidence, the appellant must include in 

contrary 

the record 

to 

a 

transcript of all the evidence relevant to such a finding or 

conclusion. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2). 

Indigent appellants proceeding in forma pauperis, however, 

may obtain a transcript of their district court proceedings in 

accordance with 28 U.S.C. S 753(f). In pertinent part, S 753(f) 

provides that "[f]ees for transcripts furnished ... to persons 

permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall ... be paid by the 

United States if the trial judge or circuit judge certifies that 

the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial 

question)." 

This court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal in 

forma pauperis. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a motion for a free 

transcript. We may not grant the motion unless we determine the 

appeal presents a substantial question. 

Frequently, it is difficult for courts and litigants to 

discern whether a substantial question is presented unless the 

complete record is available. Rhodes v. Corps of Eng'rs of United 

States Army, 589 F.2d 358, 359 (8th Cir. 1978); Lee v. Habib, 424 

F.2d 891, 904-05 (D.C. Cir. 1970). Because§ 753(f) was not 

intended to require free transcripts for all prose litigants who 

argue a sufficiency of the evidence issue on appeal, we must 

consider the district court's file and Plaintiff's opening brief 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-1350 Document: 010110276710 Date Filed: 08/10/1992 Page: 3
and Exhibit Book to determine whether he presents a substantial 

question, see Rhodes, 589 F.2d at 359-60. 

These documents as a whole do not provide us with enough 

information to conclude Plaintiff demonstrates the appeal presents 

a substantial question. See id. at 360; see also Maloney v. E.I . 

=D~u=P~o=n~t=-------"d=e=-_=N=e=m=o~u=r~s=---_&:::::--=C~o...a...., 396 F.2d 939, 940 (D.C. Cir. 

1967)(appellant has burden of proving appeal presents a 

substantial question), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1030 (1970). 

Accordingly, we must deny Plaintiff's motion for a free 

transcript. Because, without a transcript, we cannot review the 

district court's factual findings, we accept them as correct. See 

Trujillo, 928 F.2d at 976. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED . Plaintiff's motion for a free 

transcript is DENIED . 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

James E. Barrett 

Senior Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-1350 Document: 010110276710 Date Filed: 08/10/1992 Page: 4