2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-19-2013

Ivy Eckman v. Lancaster Cty

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-2372

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Ivy Eckman v. Lancaster Cty" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 1114.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/1114
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2372

___________

IVY JO ECKMAN; ADRIAN SANCHEZ; 

ALTHEA SANCHEZ

v.

LANCASTER CITY; C. LUCIANO, POLICE OFFICER; 

JOSEPH GRAZCYK, POLICE OFFICER; 

JAMES FATTA, POLICE OFFICER; 

DAMON GREATHOUSE, POLICE OFFICER

 Ivy Jo Eckman,

 Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 08-cv-05454)

District Judge: Honorable James Knoll Gardner

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 1, 2013

Before: SLOVITER, GREENAWAY, JR., and BARRY, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 19, 2013)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM
2

Ivy Jo Eckman appeals the District Court’s order granting certain Appellees’ 

motion for summary judgment and the jury’s verdict in another Appellee’s favor. For the 

reasons below, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

Because we write primarily for the parties, we will limit our discussion to the facts 

that are helpful to our discussion. In April 2004, Eckman put her car in storage because 

she could no longer make the loan payments. Eckman failed to pay storage fees for her 

car, and it was sold at auction in February 2005 and titled and registered to the new 

owner. In April 2005, she went to the storage facility, and her friend drove the car away. 

In May 2005, Eckman was arrested and charged with theft by unlawful taking and 

receiving stolen property. Eckman contested whether the auction of the car was proper. 

A plea agreement was discussed in which Eckman would reveal the location of the 

vehicle and the charges would be dropped. However, Eckman refused because she 

wanted charges dropped against others involved in the matter. When the plea agreement 

failed, Eckman was arrested again in July 2005. The charges against her were eventually 

dismissed.

Represented by counsel, Eckman filed a civil rights complaint alleging false arrest, 

failure to investigate, and malicious prosecution. Appellees filed for summary judgment. 

The District Court granted summary judgment on all claims except Eckman’s claims

against Appellee Greathouse regarding her arrest in July 2005. After a trial, a jury found 

in favor of Greathouse. Eckman filed a pro se notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
3

In her brief, Eckman states only, without elaboration, that her attorney did not 

represent her sufficiently. However, an attorney’s poor performance is not a ground for 

vacating the District Court’s judgment. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 

633-34 (1962); Nelson v. Boeing Co., 446 F.3d 1118, 1119 (10th Cir. 2006).

Eckman states that she cannot afford to order the trial transcripts for the four-day 

trial. Transcripts may be provided at government expense to indigent appellants, “if the 

trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous,” but instead presents 

a substantial question of fact or law. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). In addition, courts should also 

determine whether the appellant has demonstrated a particular need for the transcript on 

appeal. Harvey v. Andrist, 754 F.2d 569, 571 (5th Cir. 1985). The appellant should 

bring to the court’s attention any facts that might require a close examination of the 

transcript. Id. Eckman has not described any particular need for the transcript or 

explained what parts of the trial or rulings of the District Court she is seeking to 

challenge. “An indigent [litigant] is not entitled to a transcript at government expense 

without a showing of the need, merely to comb the record in the hope of discovering 

some flaw.” United States v. Glass, 317 F.2d 200, 202 (4th Cir. 1963). Moreover, in her 

notice of appeal, Eckman indicated that she was also appealing the District Court’s order 

granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment. Although Eckman did not need the 

trial transcripts to challenge that order, she does not explain why she believes the order 

was wrong.

For the above reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.