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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O KISSINGER; et al,

Defendants.

No. 2:04-CV-0878-TLN-DAD

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Charles Davis’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion

for Transcripts. (ECF No. 369.) A jury trial was conducted in this case on October 28 through 

November 4, 2014. (ECF Nos. 345, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351.) On November 4, 2014, the jury 

returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Defendants. (Verdict, ECF No. 163.) On November 

13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for New Trial. (ECF No. 358.) The Court denied that motion 

on September 29, 2015. (ECF No. 368.) On October 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant motion, 

seeking full and complete trial transcripts with fees waived or assigned to Defendants or, in the 

alternative, to certify the issue to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for review. (ECF No. 369.) 

Although Plaintiff was represented at trial, request for transcripts was filed without

representation.

A litigant proceeding in forma pauperis may move for the production of transcripts at 

government expense “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). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) (defining 

circumstances in which the court can direct the government to pay for transcript requests). Such a 

request is granted only if “the appeal presents a substantial issue.” Henderson v. United States, 

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 370 Filed 02/08/16 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

734 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, Plaintiff has not yet filed a notice of appeal, so the 

Court is unable to determine whether the projected future appeal would present a substantial 

question. Although Plaintiff does describe the issues he potentially intends to raise on appeal in 

the instant motion, Plaintiff’s failure to file a notice of appeal within the 30 day time period 

permitted by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) clearly indicates that Plaintiff’s 

appeal would be time barred which would preclude a court from finding a substantial question 

had been presented.

Plaintiff further requests that should the Court deny his transcript request, that the Court 

certify each issue raised for appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 369 at 1.) 

However, because the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for new trial is a final judgment under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, the Court is not required to certify these issues for appeal. 

Plaintiff was free to file his appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals within the 30 day time 

period permitted by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A). His instant motion does not 

stay the 30 day time period.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. Any further relief must be sought from the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2016

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 370 Filed 02/08/16 Page 2 of 2