The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Sylvia H. Rambo
Before the court is Plaintiff's request for a trial transcript for purposes of appeal. This request is made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). This section states in part, that fees for transcripts furnished in other proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall also be paid by the United States if the trial judge or circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question).
At the close of Plaintiff's case during the non-jury civil trial in this matter, this court granted judgment as a matter of law to Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c). Attached hereto as Exhibit A are the reasons for the judgment as stated by this court in so ruling. The trial in this case began at 9:39 a.m. and ended at 11:31 a.m and the judgment was rendered at 1:40 p.m. Plaintiff was able to file a motion for new trial without the aide of a transcript. Furthermore, § 753(f) does not require the preparation of a transcript where the judge certifies that the appeal is frivolous.
In the instant case, this court finds that any appeal is frivolous and will not order a trial transcript. An appropriate order will be issued.
In accordance with the accompanying memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's motion for a transcript of the non-jury trial in the captioned matter is DENIED.
Sylvia H. Rambo United States District Judge
Defendants have made a motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c). That rule permits the court to enter judgment if a party has been fully heard on an issue during a non-jury trial, and requires the court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52(a).
The court makes the following findings of fact in this case.
1. At all relevant time, Plaintiff was incarcerated at SCI-Huntingdon.
2. Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 12, 2008 naming as Defendants Jeffrey Beard, Raymond Lawler, C. Wakefield, and Timothy Yutzy.
3. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that he was subject to overcrowding, extreme temperatures, inappropriate ventilation, inappropriate emissions of smoke from the smoke stack in the yard, dust, inappropriate sanitation, pests, insects, and rodents. Plaintiff alleges that these conditions violate the 8th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
4. Plaintiff properly exhausted the following claims: his claim of inappropriate ventilation, emissions of smoke into the recreation yard, and rodent ...