(PC) Hackworth v. Arevalos

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT HACKWORTH, No. 1:19-CV-01362-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING HACKWORTH’S MOTION FOR TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS 13 v. Docs. 170, 171, 173 14 E. AREVALOS, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 19 Plaintiff Robert Hackworth (“Hackworth”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 20 forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he asserted First and 21 Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant E. Arevalos (“Arevalos”), a correctional officer 22 employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The case proceeded to 23 a jury trial, and the jury returned a verdict for Hackworth on both claims, awarding Hackworth 24 both compensatory and punitive damages. Docs. 157, 158. Arevalos filed a post-trial motion 25 under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b) and 59(a) for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, 26 or, alternatively, a new trial. Doc. 165. Hackworth was granted an extension of time to 27 February 10, 2025, to file his opposition to defendant’s post-trial motion. Docs. 174. Hackworth 28 1 | moves for the court to provide him the trial transcripts so he may prepare his opposition to the 2 | pending post-trial motion.! Docs. 170, 171, 173. 3 Hackworth has sufficiently established that he requires the trial transcripts to prepare his 4 | response to Arevalos’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a 5 | new trial. Moreover, Arevalos has already obtained a copy of the trial transcripts for her use in 6 | connection with her motion. 7 Accordingly, Hackworth’s motion for a copy of the trial transcripts is granted, and the 8 | Court directs that they be provided to Hackworth at the court’s expense.” See Giraldes v. 9 | Prebula, No. CIV. S-O1-2110 LKK-EFB, 2012 WL 1355739, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2012) 10 | (authorizing use of non-appropriated funds for litigation expenses on behalf of indigent litigant). 11 12 | TIS SO ORDERED. _ 13 Dated: _ January 22, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 ' Hackworth’s first two filings for transcripts were order forms without any motion. Docs. 170, 171. In his third filing, Hackworth moved for the trial transcripts to be provided to him at no 19 || expense so he can prepare an opposition to the pending Rule 50(b) and Rule 59(a) motion. Doc. 173. 20 > The transcripts will be provided at the court’s expense, rather than pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(c) or 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), neither of which apply given the current posture of the case. Section 1915(c) provides that, for a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis, “the court may direct payment by the United States of the expenses of .. . printing the record on appeal in any civil or 23 | criminal case, if such printing is required by the appellate court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) (emphasis added). Section 753(f) provides that “[flees for transcripts furnished in other proceedings to 24 | persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall also be paid by the United States if the trial > judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial 5 question).” 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (emphasis added); see also Lopez v. Yale, No. 1:04-cv-05595- 26 | DLB PC, 2008 WL 3155201, at *2 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2008) (noting 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) applies only to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis). Here, Hackworth seeks the trial 27 || transcripts to respond to defendant’s post-trial motion in the district court, neither party has filed a notice of appeal, and no appeal is pending. 28