IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 16, 2009
JULIUS LEE JACKSON, PLAINTIFF,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 24 U.S.C. § 1983. A jury trial was held in this case in August 2008, resulting in a verdict for defendants. Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal. Before the court is plaintiff's request for copies of the trial transcripts, filed on September 26, 2008.
The court may order the government to pay for transcripts only if "the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question)."
28 U.S.C. § 753(f); Henderson v. United States, 734 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff's filings indicate that the basis of his appeal is this court's denial of a motion to appoint counsel. The courts have the power to request that an attorney represent an individual unable to afford counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Such appointment, however, is appropriate only in "exceptional circumstances." See, e.g., Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court's decision regarding appointment of counsel is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Id.
In this case, plaintiff has not shown that "substantial questions" exist as to the propriety of the denial of counsel, or as to that order's effect on the outcome of this case. Accordingly, plaintiff's request for transcripts at court expense, Doc. No. 152, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.