Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

280 F. Supp. 852

Price v. Rundle

U.S. District Court

Decided March 5, 1968

U.S. District Court · decided 1968-03-05

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1974

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The law judges of each of the several courts of oyer and terminer and general jail delivery, and of the courts of quarter sessions of the peace, shall emiiloy the official stenographer or stenographers of the courts of common pleas of the particular county, to report the proceedings of the said court, whenever requested so to do by any defendant or defendants, or his, her or their counsel before or during the trial of any case in any of said courts: Provided, further, That in all cases tried in the several courts of oyer and terminer and general jail delivery if the request or requests for a copy of the notes of testimony are made within ninety (90) days from date of verdict, or at any time if in the discretion of the court such request should be granted, the defendant or defendants shall be furnished with a copy of the notes of testimony taken at his, her or their request, which said notes shall be paid for by the county in which said case is tried, except, however, that where the court finds that the defendant or defendants making the request arc able to pay for the copies, the cost thereof shall bo paid by such defendant or defendants and shall be taxed as costs and paid to the county.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Smith v. De Furia

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1968-03-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TROUTMAN, District Judge.

¶2This matter is before the Court for disposition of plaintiff’s petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

¶3The District Attorney’s office of Bucks County has informed us that on March 17, 1967, the petitioner was sentenced to five-ten years on Bill of Indictment No. 51, March Term, 1964, in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Bucks County and to one year on Bill of Indictment No. 52, March Term 1964, in the Quarter Sessions Court of Bucks County. The sentences were to run concurrently and were to commence as of January 19, 1965.

¶4Petitioner had been incarcerated at the Graterford Correctional Institution but is presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Petitioner contends that the named defendants have intentionally and deliberately refused to furnish him with copies of the notes of testimony of his criminal trials and have thereby deprived him of his civil rights within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.

¶5It may well be, as petitioner contends, that the named defendants were in possession of copies of the notes of testimony of his criminal trials (61 P.S. § 302) and that they refused to make them *853available to him. However, 17 P.S. § 1802 provides that once the appeal time has expired, it is within the discretion of the State Courts to determine whether State prisoners are entitled to copies of the notes of testimony of their criminal trials.1 Indeed, petitioner admits that it was suggested that he “write to the Clerk of Courts”, but he apparently has not done so. It follows that the named defendants were under no duty to make their copies of the notes of testimony available to the petitioner and their refusal to do so did not thereby deprive the petitioner of his civil rights within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Consequently, the plaintiff’s petition must be denied in that his complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

¶6. Apparently, under 17 P.S. § 1802, a defendant is entitled to a free copy of the notes of testimony only in cases tried in the Courts of Oyer and Terminer and General Jail Delivery. Present plaintiff was tried and convicted both in the Court of Oyer and Terminer and in the Court of Quarter Sessions. However, since his sentence in the Court of Quarter Sessions has expired, we can see no conceivable basis for the allegation that the named defendants’ refusal to furnish him with a copy of those notes is a denial of any civil rights.

/280/fsupp/852 · .json · Public domain