United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (MOT. COPY DEPO. - ECF NO. 56; MOT. JANE DOE #1
- ECF NO. 58; MOT. DKT. SHEET - ECF NO. 65)
A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the court on Plaintiff Mark Picozzi's
Motion for Copy of Deposition (ECF No. 56); Motion to Name
Jane Doe #1 as Nurse Amanda Vertner (ECF No. 58), and Motion
Get Docket Sheet (ECF No. 65). These Motions are referred to
the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and
LR IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice.
Picozzi is a pro se prisoner currently in the custody of the
Nevada Department of Corrections. He has received permission
to proceed in this case in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and LSR
1-1 of the Local Rules of Practice. See IFP
Application (ECF No. 3); Screening Order (ECF No. 15). This
case arises from Picozzi's allegations, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1983, regarding his treatment while he was
incarcerated at the Clark County Detention Center
(“CCDC”). Upon review of the Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 14), the court issued a Screening Order (ECF No. 15)
finding that Picozzi stated the following plausible claims:
(1) Eighth Amendment claim of excessive force against
Defendants Sergeant Judd and Officer Garcia, as well as John
Doe correctional officers #1 and #2; (2) Eighth Amendment
claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need
against Defendant Officer Hightower and Nurse Jane Doe #1;
(3) Fourteenth Amendment claim of violation of access to the
courts against Defendant Officers Hightower, Daos, Goins,
Hans, Brooks, Phillips, Carr, Jolley, and Coker, as well as
John Doe correctional officers #4 and #5; and (4) First
Amendment claim of interference with his right to legal
correspondence against Defendant Razzo and John Doe CCDC mail
room officer. Id. at 14. By acknowledging that his
claims implicate doe defendants, Mr. Picozzi was given an
opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown
defendants. Id. at 14 n.6-9.
Motion for Copy of Deposition
asks the court to order defense counsel to provide him with a
transcript of his deposition testimony, which was taken on
October 28, 2016, at High Desert State Prison. He states that
counsel informed him that he would need a court order to
obtain the transcript. Picozzi asserts that he is entitled to
a copy pursuant to the “Discovery Rule” of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mot. (ECF No. 56). In their
Response (ECF No. 63), Defendants Sergeant Judd, Corrections
Officers Hightower, Daos, Goins, Hans, Brooks, Phillips, and
Coker (“CCDC defendants”) argue that there is no
legal basis upon which Defendants should be forced to provide
him with a deposition transcript. Counsel advised Picozzi at
his deposition that he would be required to pay for a copy of
the transcript. Additionally, the court reporter asked
counsel for the CCDC defendants not to provide a transcript
to Picozzi since he did not order a copy for himself.
See Resp. Ex. B (ECF No. 63-2). Picozzi did not file
a reply and the deadline to do so has expired.
Supreme Court has held that an inmate's constitutional
right of access to courts does not impose “an
affirmative obligation on the states to finance and support
prisoner litigation.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.
343, 384 (1996). Nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or Ninth Circuit case authority require defendants
or the courts to finance or subsidize fees and costs
associated with prosecuting a civil action. See,
e.g., Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th
Cir. 1993) (finding that “28 U.S.C. § 1915, the
in forma pauperis statute, does not waive payment of
fees or expenses for witnesses”) (citing Tedder v.
Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989)).
discovery provisions of the Federal Rules do not entitle a
plaintiff to a free copy of his deposition transcript.
See, e.g., Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 159
(3d Cir. 1993) (finding that the in forma pauperis
statute does not provide “for the payment by the
government of the costs of deposition transcripts, or any
other litigation expenses”); Rivera v.
DiSabato, 962 F.Supp. 38, 40 (D.N.J. 1997);
Tajeddini v. Gluch, 942 F.Supp. 772, 782 (D. Conn.
1996). Rule 30 states that a court reporter must furnish a
copy of a deposition transcript or recording to any party or
the deponent when he or she is “paid reasonable
charges.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(f)(3) (emphasis added).
Rule 30 does not contain a provision entitling an indigent
litigant, to free transcripts of a deposition. Thus, if a
plaintiff wishes to obtain a copy for his own records, he
must pay for it.
Picozzi has not cited to any specific statute or Rule
authorizing the court to shift the transcript fee to the CCDC
defendants. Picozzi seeks the transcript of his own
deposition. Because he was deposed and answered the questions
posed during that deposition he has within personal knowledge
of the questions asked and his own responses. See
Rivera, 962 F.Supp. at 41. Thus, his own notes and
personal knowledge should be sufficient to assist him in
prosecuting his case. The motion is denied.
Motion to Name Jane Doe #1 as Nurse Amanda Vertner
previous motion, Mr. Picozzi requested that an order for
service include “Nurse Amanda.” See Mot.
for Order to Serve (ECF No. 44). However, the motion did not
indicate whether Nurse Amanda is Nurse Jane Doe #1 or a
different doe defendant. The court therefore instructed him
that, if he “wants to substitute Nurse Amanda for Jane
Doe nurse #1, or some other Doe defendant, he must file a
notice with the court stating which doe defendant he is
substituting with Nurse Amanda.” See Nov. 2,
2016 Order (ECF No. 55) at 7.
than filing a notice, Picozzi filed a motion to notify the
court that Nurse Jane Doe #1 is Nurse Amanda Vertner and
asking for an order directing the U.S. Marshals Service
(“USM”) to serve Vertner. Accordingly, Nurse
Amanda Vertner will be substituted in place of Nurse Jane Doe
#1. However, this substitution is limited to the claim
alleged in the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14) and found
colorable in the Screening Order (ECF No. 15). The court
previously informed Picozzi:
The notice must identify each and every instance in
which Yosemite Sam was the person referred to as John Doe #1.
If the notice fails to identify and attribute any particular
allegation to Yosemite Sam, the notice will not be effective
and will not substitute Yosemite Sam in place of John Doe #1
for that specific allegation. However, a plaintiff must file
a motion amend the operative complaint, instead ...