2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

11-7-2013 

# W a y ne P r a t e r v . C it y of P hi l a del phi a

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al

D ock e t N o . 12-3979

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" W a y ne P r a t e r v

. C it y of P hi l a de lp hi a " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 1468. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/1468

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________
No. 12

- 3 979

___________ WAYNE PRATER,

Appellant

v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; POLICE OFFICER EDWARD SOL VIBILE, Badge #1694,

individually and as a police officer for the City of Philade l phia; POLICE OFFICER JOSEPH WALSH, BADGE #5315 individually and as a police officer for the City of Philadelphia

____________________________________ On Appeal from the U nited States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 11

- cv

- 00667 ) Magistrate Judge: Honorable Timothy R. Rice

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

October 16, 201 3 Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GARTH
, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : November 7, 2013 )

___________
OPINION

___________
PER CURIAM
Wayne Prater appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the2



### Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entered after a jur y trial in his civil rights case. Prater
raises essentially two claims in his brief on appeal: (1) the elimination of the only Black
juror in the jury pool violated Batson
, 1 

### and (2) the jury did not follow the instructions
given by the judge. We will di smiss the appeal.
It is the appellant’s duty to arrange for the trial transcript, and we may dismiss an
appeal if an appellant fails to do so. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(a)(2); 10(b)(1); 3 d Cir. L.A.R.

11.1; Richardson v. Henry , 902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir. 19 90) (dismissing appeal by
inmate in civil rights action for failure to provide a transcript). Because Prater did not
order transcripts, we have no record of the jury selection process, and similarly cannot

assess whether the jury followed the instructions given by the judge. We require the
transcript not only to assess the merits of these issues, but to determine whether Prater
preserved them for appellate review. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal

.

1 

### Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986), hold s that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause bars the use of peremptory strikes to exclude jurors on the basis of race. The Supreme Court has also extended Batson to civil cases. Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc. , 500 U.S. 614, 631 (1991).