Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 20, 2023

Boyd v. City of San Rafael

Judge
Edward Chen
Docket
3:23-cv-04085
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Boyd v. City of San Rafael, Judge Chen denied plaintiffs’ request for government-funded transcripts because they did not identify a planned appeal.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs were denied government-funded expedited transcripts, but the court said it would email them courtesy copies of transcripts already ordered by the defendants.

What happened

In Boyd v. City of San Rafael, plaintiffs proceeding without paying court fees asked for expedited transcripts at the government’s expense. They requested emailed copies and 14 mailed hard copies of each transcript.

The plaintiffs relied on a law that can require the government to pay for transcripts for people allowed to appeal without paying court fees when the judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous and raises an important question. The court found that law did not apply because plaintiffs had not said they intended to appeal.

The court denied the motion. Judge Chen stated that the defendants had already ordered the transcripts and that the court would email courtesy copies to the plaintiffs.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Boyd v. City of San Rafael · No. 3:23-cv-04085
Judge
Edward Chen
Date
Nov. 20, 2023

Background

Plaintiffs proceeding without paying court fees filed a motion for expedited transcripts at the government’s expense. They asked the court to email copies to them and mail 14 hard copies of each transcript. The plaintiffs cited 28 U.S.C. § 753(f).

Court’s reasoning

Section 753(f) provides for government payment of transcripts furnished to people permitted to appeal without paying court fees when the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous and presents a substantial question. The court held that the statute did not apply because the plaintiffs had not stated that they intended to appeal. The court also found that the cases the plaintiffs cited involved requests for government-funded transcripts made in connection with non-frivolous appeals and therefore did not support their motion.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion. It stated that it would email the plaintiffs courtesy copies of transcripts that the defendants had already ordered. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.