Court Opinion

ID: 9475938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:43:09.682025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:02.205838
License: Public Domain

JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the Court’s opinion, but write separately to emphasize that that Congress has provided parties — able to sustain the status of an “indigent” — adequate recourse to the courts by making federal funds available for preparation of transcripts necessary for review by district and circuit judges.
A cursory review of the United States Code is illustrative.
[T]he court may direct payment by the United States of the expenses of ... printing the record on appeal ... [and] preparing a transcript of proceedings before a United States magistrate if such transcript is required by the district court ... upon the filing of an affidavit *57that a person is unable to pay the costs of an action.
28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Although § 1915 specifies particular proceedings, a careful analysis of the statute’s purpose leads to encompassing transcripts of quasi-judicial proceedings as well.
However, such analysis is unnecessary in light of the explicit provision of 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). Section 753(f) provides for persons appealing in forma pauperis to obtain transcripts of “other proceedings” at the expense of the United States. The only requirement is for either the trial judge or circuit judge to certify the appeal is not frivolous and presents a substantial question.
Congress has provided similar relief by including “fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case” in the costs that may be taxed by a judge under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). The limitation of this section is merely that the trial judge deem the material “necessary” for use in the trial. The Second and Fifth Circuits have included transcribing and copying depositions as potentially necessary for use in a trial, Brager & Co., v. Leumi Securities Corp., 530 F.Supp. 1361 (D.C.N.Y.), aff'd, 697 F.2d 288 (2d Cir.1982); United States v. Kolesar, 313 F.2d 835 (5th Cir.1963). A trial judge to whom application is made might well consider that the importance of a transcript from the Board of Education hearing is surely equal to a deposition transcript in preparing and executing a review/appeal of that hearing.
Congress has made generous provisions for a needy party to obtain those materials which are necessary to seek redress of their grievances in the courts. The relief sought by appellants — and those in like situations — is available to litigants who file the required affidavit seeking in forma pauperis certification and follow the guidelines established by Congress. In light of the financial assistance available under Title 28, I concur no compelling basis for imposing the costs of transcription on the New Hampshire State Board of Education exists.