Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Simcoe v. Gray

United States District Court, W.D. New York

July 8, 2015

THOMAS SIMCOE, Plaintiff,
v.
LT. TIMOTHY GRAY, OFFICER JEFFREY SMITH, and OFFICER KEITH GLASS, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

FRANK P. GERACI, Jr., Chief District Judge.

Following a five day trial, the jury returned a no cause of action verdict in favor of the Defendants on May 13, 2015. ECF No. 138. Judgment was entered accordingly, ECF No. 140, and Plaintiff Thomas Simcoe ("Simcoe") timely filed a Notice of Appeal on May 28, 2015. ECF No. 141. Presently before the Court is Simcoe's motion seeking a free copy of the trial transcripts. ECF No. 146. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

28 U.S.C. ยง 753(f) provides that "fees for transcripts furnished... to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall... be paid by the United States if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question)." The standard for determining if an appeal presents a substantial question is whether, when judged on an objective basis, the appeal (1) raises a question that is "reasonably debatable" and (2) whether the transcript is necessary to the presentation of the appeal. O'Neal v. Cnty. of Nassau, 992 F.Supp. 524, 536 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) aff'd sub nom, O'Neal v. Nassau Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 133 F.3d 907 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). "[C]ourts also take into account... the cost to the Court of providing the requested transcript." Eldaghar v. City of New York Dep't of Citywide Admin. Servs., No. 02 Civ. 9151, 2009 WL 1730977, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2009).

In support of his motion, Simcoe lists the following issues for his appeal that he claims present a substantial question:

Whether or not is (sic) was an abuse of discretion to (based on the facts and circumstances of the case):
(1) not appoint a medical expert of court medical expert (FRE 706);
(2) not appoint counsel;
(3) not appoint a police protocol expert to refute the police defendant's incredible version of events;
(4) not allow the admission of or cross-examination into prior complaints of excessive force against Lt. Gray especially in light of the fact that the defense counsel portrayed (sic) him as the quintessential professional when he was testifying and where defense counsel changed positions from my broken nose as a mere accident, to my ex-wife did it, only to side-step rule 404 (FRE);
(5) And that the defendant's fabricated radio transmissions specifically ex post facto for this civil trial (see attached letter to prosecutor) and manufactured the rope to inflame the jury. Inextricably linked to this fabrication of evidence is that the jury during deliberations requested a playback of these recordings and I was precluded from challenging this "evidence" during summation;
(6) The police defendants' testimonies were at least incredible as a matter of law, hence
(7) The verdict was against the weight of the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.