Ronald Roy Henderson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellee, 734 F.2d 483 (9th Cir. 1984)
Annotate this CaseMichael M. Angello, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Michael Walsh, Warren P. Reese, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Before KENNEDY, PREGERSON and NELSON, Circuit Judges:
On February 14, 1984 this court entered an order worded as follows:
Appellant's renewed motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is granted to the extent that preparation of the reporter's transcript shall be at government expense under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f).
The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts has refused payment to the court reporter because the February 14 order did not specifically state that the appeal was "not frivolous (but presents a substantial issue)."
An order of this court directing production of a transcript at government expense pursuant to Sec. 753(f) implicitly embodies a finding by the court that the appeal presents a substantial issue. Indeed, the court could not enter such an order without necessarily reaching such a conclusion. The February 14 order, and like orders from this court, shall be interpreted as certifications under Sec. 753(f) by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. Furthermore, a finding is made nunc pro tunc that this appeal is not frivolous and presents a substantial issue.
The Administrative Office will compensate the reporter for the transcript produced pursuant to the February 14 order.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
