UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FRAZIER A. MATTHEWS, :

:

 Plaintiff, : No. 4:CV-04-2341

:

vs. : (Complaint filed 10/25/04)

:

C.O. J.L. KEEFER, C.O. ZIMMERMS, : (Judge Muir)

and R.N. PERZACKY, :

:

Defendant : 

ORDER

December 19, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On October 25, 2004, Plaintiff Frazier A, Matthews, an

inmate at the State Corrections Facility at Mahanoy in

Frackville, Pennsylvania, initiated this action by filing a pro

se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Matthews

has been permitted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915.

On December 14, 2005, the undersigned received a letter from

Matthews dated December 11, 2005. In his letter, Matthews states

that he was recently deposed by the defendants’ attorney, he

requested her to provide him with a copy of the deposition

transcript free of charge, and the attorney denied his request. 

Matthews requests the court in his letter to “put an order in for

[him] to have the copies to the transcript as soon as possible.” 

We will construe Matthews’s letter as a motion for a free copy of

the deposition transcript, and will rule on the motion without

Case 4:04-cv-02341-MM-DB Document 56 Filed 12/20/05 Page 1 of 3
2

requiring the parties to file any briefs in connection with the

motion.

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed the

issue raised in Matthews’s motion in the case of Tabron v. Grace,

6 F.3d 147, 153, 155-157 (3d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct.

1306 (1994). In that case the court confirmed that

[t]here is no provision in [28 U.S.C. § 1915] for the

payment by the government of the costs of deposition

transcripts, or any other litigation expenses, and no other

statute authorizes courts to commit federal monies for

payment of the necessary expenses in a civil suit brought by

an indigent litigant.

Id., at 158. Despite the lack of any statutory basis for the

government to pay to provide a deposition transcript to an

indigent plaintiff, the court in Tabron further commented that 

a district court may, under some circumstances, exercise its

discretion to order an opposing party to pay for or to

provide copies of deposition transcripts for an indigent

litigant ....

Id., at 159. Under the circumstances presented to the court in

Tabron, the court noted the general rule that a litigant bears

his or her own litigation expenses and the court ultimately held

that the district court had not abused its discretion in denying

the plaintiff’s motion for a copy of a deposition transcript

without charge. In denying Tabron’s motion, the court noted

“that Tabron attended and participated in all of the depositions

and therefore was able to take notes and compile information from

the live testimony.” Id.

Case 4:04-cv-02341-MM-DB Document 56 Filed 12/20/05 Page 2 of 3
3

The circumstances of the case at hand involve Matthew’s

request to obtain a copy of his own deposition. As in Tabron

Matthews is fully aware of the substance of the deposition

testimony. Under the circumstances of this case, we will deny

Matthews’s motion for a free copy of his deposition transcript.

See also Rivera v. DisAbato, 962 F. Supp. 38 (D.N.J.

1997)(denying indigent plaintiff’s motion to obtain without

charge a copy of his own deposition transcript).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Clerk of Court shall docket Matthews’s letter dated

December 11, 2005, and received by the undersigned on

December 14, 2005.

2. Matthews’s letter of December 11, 2005, is construed as

a motion for a copy of his deposition transcript.

3. Matthews’s motion for a copy of his deposition

transcript is denied.

s/Malcolm Muir 

MUIR, U.S. District Judge

MM:ga

Case 4:04-cv-02341-MM-DB Document 56 Filed 12/20/05 Page 3 of 3