Schultz v. The Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:20-cv-04058
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Schultz v. Truman Foundation, Judge Chesney denied Schultz’s request for a trial transcript at government expense for his appeal.
Brendan Schultz’s request for a trial transcript at government expense was denied; the opinion states that he may renew the request with the Court of Appeals.
What happened
In Schultz v. The Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation, Brendan Schultz asked the court reporter for the complete transcript of his six-day trial, offering to pay $850 and asking the government to pay the rest. He represented himself and was allowed to proceed without paying court fees.
The court explained that a person appealing without paying court fees may receive a transcript at government expense only if a judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous and raises a substantial question. Schultz listed issues for appeal but generally did not explain why they had merit.
Judge Maxine Chesney found that Schultz’s only specifically supported argument—that the court did not consider one of his two claims—was not reasonably debatable based on the record. The court therefore denied his motion, while noting that he could renew the request with the Court of Appeals.
The detailed version
- Schultz v. The Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation · No. 3:20-cv-04058
- Maxine Chesney
- Aug. 6, 2024
Background
Brendan Schultz proceeded without a lawyer and without paying court fees in this action. His claims were tried to the court during a six-day bench trial. He filed a motion seeking a complete trial transcript. Schultz offered to pay $850 of the cost and asked the United States to pay the balance.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), a party appealing without paying court fees may obtain a transcript at government expense if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous and presents a substantial question. A substantial question exists when the issue on appeal is reasonably debatable. The party seeking the transcript must identify the intended appellate issues and show why they are substantial.
Court’s analysis
Schultz listed several issues he wanted to raise on appeal but, with one exception, did not explain why those issues were meritorious. He asserted that the court did not entertain one of his two claims. The court found that assertion was not reasonably debatable in light of the record. Because Schultz did not make the required showing, the court could not certify that his appeal was nonfrivolous and presented a substantial question.
Ruling
Judge Maxine Chesney denied Schultz’s “Motion for Transcripts at Government Expense.” The opinion states that Schultz may renew his request with the Court of Appeals.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.