The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR ASSISTANCE WITH TRANSCRIPT REIMBURSEMENT FUND APPLICATION (Doc. 68)
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND EXTENDING DEADLINE REGARDING COUCH WRITTEN DEPOSITION DEADLINE TO JULY 31, 2012 (Docs. 67 and 69)
Plaintiff Alex Lamota Marti, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 9, 2008. On October 11, 2011, the Court issued an order (1) denying Plaintiff's motion for leave to depose a nonparty witness by written questions and for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum, and (2) granting Plaintiff thirty days within which to make the requisite showing regarding his ability to depose Correctional Officer R. D. Couch by written questions. (Doc. 45.) On November 30, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff's motions for an extension of time and extended the deadline to February 2, 2012. (Doc. 59.)
On January 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed his third motion seeking an extension of time to comply with the order, and on March 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed his fourth motion seeking an extension of time.
(Docs. 67, 69.) In between those dates, Plaintiff filed a motion on
March 9, 2012, seeking the Court's assistance regarding his
application to the Court Reporters Board of California.*fn1
II. Motion for Assistance with Transcript Reimbursement Fund Application
Section 8030 of the California Business and Professions Code provides for a Transcript Reimbursement Fund for low-income clients in civil cases who would otherwise be unable to afford shorthand reporting services. Plaintiff has applied for payment from this fund to cover the cost of Officer Couch's deposition by written questions, which Plaintiff wishes to conduct.
On February 17, 2012, the Court Reporters Board of California (the Board) sent Plaintiff a letter informing him that his application was received but could not be processed because he did not include a copy of his court-approved fee waiver or a court reporter's estimate of costs. Plaintiff seeks assistance regarding the court-approved fee waiver, stating that he provided with his application a copy of the Court's order granting him leave to proceed in forma pauperis but it is apparently not the functional equivalent of a state court fee waiver.
Plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows. The Court has no jurisdiction over or involvement in the administration of the fund from which Plaintiff seeks payment. However, to the extent it is helpful to Plaintiff in his endeavor, the following is clarified: Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and the Court's order granting it are the federal court's equivalent of the fee waiver identified in the Board's letter. The Court cannot generate any different or additional documentation regarding the fee waiver because Plaintiff is in possession of and has already provided the Board with a copy of the court-approved fee waiver: the order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma paupers signed on May 15, 2008, and filed on May 16, 2008.
III. Motions for Extension of Time
Plaintiff seeks a sixty-day extension of time to comply with the Court's order requiring him to demonstrate his ability to depose Officer Couch by written questions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31. Good cause having been shown, Plaintiff shall be granted an extension of time up to and including July 31, 2012.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ...