Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Nolt v. Strausser
Citations: 761 F. Supp. 18; 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12349; 1990 WL 285667Docket: Civ. A. 89-6111
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania; September 13, 1990; Federal District Court
Mark Nolt, the plaintiff, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sergeant Gregory Strausser and Corrections Officer Steven Yoder, claiming violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights after being assaulted by another inmate while incarcerated at the State Correctional Institute at Frackville. Nolt alleged that the defendants were aware of the potential for the assault and were indifferent to his safety. The court initially granted him permission to proceed in forma pauperis and scheduled a trial after determining that genuine issues of material fact existed. A bench trial was held on July 9, 1990, resulting in a ruling in favor of the defendants, which was documented in detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Following the trial, Nolt filed a Notice of Appeal on July 20, 1990, and subsequently requested an order for the United States to provide transcripts of the trial proceedings to aid in his appeal. The court denied this request, citing that while appellants must either pay for transcripts or obtain a district court order for public funding under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), such funding requires a certification that the appeal is non-frivolous and presents substantial questions. The court noted that Nolt did not demonstrate that the transcripts were necessary for proper appellate review, thus failing to meet the criteria for obtaining transcripts at public expense. Nolt's appeal included four specific grounds for consideration. The Court's decision to allow defendants' counsel to make potentially false statements was challenged, but the plaintiff did not object during the trial, rendering the issue unpreserved for appeal. This aligns with precedent indicating such allegations do not raise substantial questions for appellate review. The plaintiff, following an unfavorable outcome in a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, requested a trial transcript to support claims of misrepresentation by the defendants' counsel, which was denied on the basis that the established trial facts were sufficient. Additionally, the plaintiff contended that the Court failed to consider the defendants' duty to protect him, indicating a mixed question of law and fact. However, the Court's findings, including witness credibility evaluations, suggested the plaintiff's chances of success on appeal were minimal, leading to a determination that the issues did not warrant the requested trial records for review. Lastly, allegations of witness tampering and false testimony by the defendants were deemed unsupported by the trial record, rendering the trial transcript irrelevant for these claims. The conclusion was that the issues raised by the plaintiff either did not necessitate the trial record or lacked sufficient merit to justify a public expense transcription request. The plaintiff's initial complaint involved violations of constitutional rights, later broadening to claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The standards for requesting trial transcripts under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) differ from those for proceeding in forma pauperis, requiring a demonstration that the appeal is not frivolous and raises substantial questions.