United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Huntington Division
C. CHAMBERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiffs Notice of Appeal, Motion for
Stay (ECF Nos. 159 and 160). In the motion, Plaintiff takes
issue with this Court's denial of Plaintiff s
"Motions for Transcripts." (ECF Nos. 149 and 156).
Plaintiff claims that those denials were erroneous because
she cannot afford to pay the cost of acquiring copies of
these court records otherwise. Further, Plaintiff provides
notice to this Court of her desire to appeal this matter to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Under this Court's obligation to interpret pro
se filings liberally, this Court construes Plaintiffs
pleading as a motion to certify the issue of providing
transcripts for an interlocutory appeal. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (providing that courts
are construe pro se filings liberally). As explained
below, the Court does not find that this issue is appropriate
to certify for an interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, the
Court DENIES Plaintiffs Notice of Appeal,
Motion For Stay (ECF Nos. 159 and 160).
of appeals are empowered to hear appeals of final orders, and
certain interlocutory and collateral order. 28 U.S.C. §
1291; 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because this
Court's orders denying Plaintiff free copies of a hearing
transcript were not final orders,  the Court must analyze
whether the orders would be appropriate for interlocutory
order to for a court of appeals to take an interlocutory
appeal, a district court must certify the issue of a
non-final order. A district court must reach three
conclusions to certify an order for an interlocutory appeal:
(1) the order involves a controlling question of law; (2)
there is substantial ground for difference of opinion; and
(3) immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292;
United States ex rel. Al Procurement, LLC v. Thermcor,
Inc., 173 F.Supp.3d 320, 323 (E.D. Va. 2016). A district
court's authority to certify interlocutory orders for
immediate appeal should be used sparingly. Myles v.
Lajfitte, 881 F.2d 125, 127 (4th Cir. 1989). The
requirements for certification must be strictly construed.
Court's orders denying Plaintiffs request for free
transcripts do not satisfy the three requirements for
interlocutory certification. Even if these orders presented
an issue involving a controlling question of law, there is
not a substantial ground for difference of opinion. Thus, the
three requirements cannot be met.
case does not proceed under a cause of action that would
entitle her to free transcripts. United States Code provides
that the Government shall bear the cost of transcript copies
for criminal defendants proceeding under the Criminal Justice
Act (18 U.S.C. § 3006A), plaintiffs asserting habeas
corpus claims, or plaintiffs bringing claims under 28 U.S.C.
§2255. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). Here, Plaintiff filed
suit alleging various common law claims and for violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of certain rights.
Plaintiffs claims stem from alleged physical harassment by
staff of the correctional facility where she is currently
housed. Thus, Plaintiff does not meet the clearly announced
situations where the Court must provide free transcripts
under section 753(f).
section 753(f) also provides that a court can provide free
transcripts to persons in other proceedings that are
appealing in forma pauperis. Id. However, in that
situation, a court must "certify that the appeal is not
frivolous (but presents a substantial question)."
Id. Here, because this Court has not issued a final
judgment order, Plaintiff appears to want to appeal the
orders denying transcripts. The Court does not find that this
presents a substantial question.
most parties proceeding in a civil matter, Plaintiff bears
the burden of litigation costs. Generally speaking, the
courts cannot fund the ongoing litigation expenses of civil
plaintiffs, even in the case of pro se plaintiffs.
This Court provides guidance to pro se plaintiffs
that even if they are allowed to proceed without prepayment
of fees and costs, they will not be given free copies by the
Court or the Clerk's Office. Pro Se Handbook, Rule 5.2
(S.D. W.Va.). Plaintiff was on notice, when she chose to
proceed pro se, that she would have to cover the
costs of any transcript copies. Thus, the imposition of these
costs does not present a substantial question that would
allow this Court to provide free transcript copies under
section 753(f) provides clear guidance, there is not a
substantial ground for difference of opinion. Indeed, this
Court's decision is in line with various other courts
that have denied a §1983 plaintiffs request for free
transcripts. See e.g., Harvey v. Andrist, 754 F.2d
569, 571 (5th Cir. 1985); Shavers v. Bergh, 516
Fed.Appx. 568, 571-72 (6th Cir. 2013); Wrgihtv. City of
St. Francis, Kan., 166 Fed.Appx. 343, 346-47 (10th Cir.
2006); Carey v. Duncil, 82 F.3d 409, * 1 (4th Cir.
Apr. 16, 1996) (unpub. table decision). Thus, Plaintiff has
failed to establish the second prong of the interlocutory
certification requirements. Accordingly, this Court's
denial of Plaintiff s motions are proper.
Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of
this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented
 Note that the Clerk docketed Plaintiff
s pleading as both a Notice of Appeal and a Motion for
 The courts consider an order to be
final where it resolves all claims for all parties. Fox
v. Bait. City Police Dept.,201 F.3d 526, 530 (4th Cir.
2000) (citing Braswell Shipyards, Inc. v. Beazer East,
Inc.,2 F.3d 1331, 1335 (4th Cir. 1993). Because the
orders denying Plaintiff free copies of ...