United States District Court, W.D. New York
DECISION AND ORDER
ELIZABETH A. WOLEORD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
("Plaintiff) filed claims against the Niagara Frontier
Transportation Authority ("NFTA") and NFTA Police
Officer Victor Alvarado ("Alvarado") (collectively,
"Defendants") (Dkt. 7; Dkt. 73), alleging that she
had suffered a deprivation of her constitutional rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Dkt. 6). The Court granted
Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
September 16, 2011. (Dkt. 4).
Plaintiff commenced the lawsuit pro se, she was
subsequently represented by counsel, but the Court granted
that counsel's motion to withdraw. (Dkt. 41). On October
22, 2015, the Court appointed pro bono counsel to
represent Plaintiff. (Dkt. 47).
moved for summary judgment on February 1, 2016. (Dkt. 53). On
May 19, 2016, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of
NFTA, finding that Plaintiff had failed to raise a genuine
issue of material fact to support her allegations that NFTA
"maintain[ed] an unlawful policy of permitting its
employee officers to engage in excessive uses of force
without repercussion. . . ." (Dkt. 72 at 2). However,
the Court denied summary judgment with respect to Alvarado
because "there [were] disputed issues of material fact
with respect to Plaintiffs excessive use of force and
unlawful seizure/detention claims. . . ." (Id.
remaining claims against Alvarado proceeded to a jury trial
commencing on September 26, 2016, and on September 29, 2016,
a verdict was returned in favor of Alvarado. (Dkt. 105).
Judgment was entered in favor of Alvarado on October 31,
2016, (Dkt. 106), and on November 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal. (Dkt. 107). At that same time, Plaintiffs
counsel was terminated as her attorney, and Plaintiff has
returned to hex pro se status.
before the Court is Plaintiffs May 11, 2017, motion seeking
free copies of the trial transcript pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 753(f). (Dkt. 111). Plaintiff makes the following
argument in support of her motion:
[P]laintiff is proceeding pro se. Because of
questions of the [sic] fact and law raised at trial, and
confusion of the jury, . . . [P]laintiff believes . . . there
is reasonable cause the jury reached a wrong verdict. . . .
[P]laintiff is disable[d] . . . [and her] only income is SSI.
(Id. at 3).
for Alvarado filed an attorney affirmation in opposition to
Plaintiffs motion, arguing that "Plaintiff does not
articulate with any detail at all 'substantial
questions' to be raised on appeal or that her appeal is
not frivolous." (Dkt. 113 at 4).
also contends that Plaintiffs assertion of juror confusion is
made "without basis or elaboration."
(Id.). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs
motion is denied.
relevant statutory provision upon which Plaintiff bases her
motion provides as follows:
Each reporter may charge and collect fees for transcripts
requested by the parties, including the United States, at
rates prescribed by the court subject to the approval of the
Judicial Conference. He shall not charge a fee for any copy
of a transcript delivered to the clerk for the records of
court. . . . Fees for transcripts furnished in other
proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in forma
pauperis shall also be paid by the United States if