Filed: Jan. 11, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 11, 2016
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER FRANK P. GERACI, Jr. , Chief District Judge . Following a four day trial, the jury returned a no cause of action verdict in favor of the Defendants on March 5, 2015. ECF No. 48. Judgment was entered accordingly, ECF No. 49, and Plaintiff Deatrick Marshall timely filed a Notice of Appeal on April 3, 2015, ECF No. 52. Presently before the Court is a letter from Marshall seeking a free copy of the trial transcript. ECF No. 57. For the following reasons, the application is de
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER FRANK P. GERACI, Jr. , Chief District Judge . Following a four day trial, the jury returned a no cause of action verdict in favor of the Defendants on March 5, 2015. ECF No. 48. Judgment was entered accordingly, ECF No. 49, and Plaintiff Deatrick Marshall timely filed a Notice of Appeal on April 3, 2015, ECF No. 52. Presently before the Court is a letter from Marshall seeking a free copy of the trial transcript. ECF No. 57. For the following reasons, the application is den..
More
DECISION AND ORDER
FRANK P. GERACI, Jr., Chief District Judge.
Following a four day trial, the jury returned a no cause of action verdict in favor of the Defendants on March 5, 2015. ECF No. 48. Judgment was entered accordingly, ECF No. 49, and Plaintiff Deatrick Marshall timely filed a Notice of Appeal on April 3, 2015, ECF No. 52. Presently before the Court is a letter from Marshall seeking a free copy of the trial transcript. ECF No. 57. For the following reasons, the application is denied without prejudice.
DISCUSSION
28 U.S.C. § 753(f) provides that "fees for transcripts furnished . . . to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall . . . 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 question)." The standard for determining if an appeal presents a substantial question is whether, when judged on an objective basis, the appeal (1) raises a question that is "reasonably debatable" and (2) whether the transcript is necessary to the presentation of the appeal. O'Neal v. Cnty. of Nassau, 992 F.Supp. 524, 536 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) aff'd sub nom. O'Neal v. Nassau Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 133 F.3d 907 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). "[C]ourts also take into account . . . the cost to the Court of providing the requested transcript." Eldaghar v. City of New York Dep't of Citywide Admin. Servs., No. 02 Civ. 9151, 2009 WL 1730977, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2009).
Marshall's letter does not provide any basis for this Court to determine that his appeal presents a substantial question, and instead, he simply requests all transcripts "so that I am able to effectively present the facts on my appeal." This generic statement is insufficient to meet the high standard of 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), and as a result, his application is denied.
However, given Marshall's pro se status, he may file a subsequent application under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), if he believes that he can satisfy the requirements of that section.
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, Marshall's application for a free copy of the trial transcript in this case (ECF No. 57) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
