Hessert v. Street Dog Coalition, The et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 25-cv-03807-NYW-NRN
JOHN T. HESSERT,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE STREET DOG COALITION,
KATRINA WESCHLER,
STACEY EVANS,
ANDREA ROMANO,
TOD HUDSON,
RACHAEL BROWN,
LISA CUMMINS DULCHINOS,
DOUG MCINNIS,
SANDRINE CHAUMETTE,
KYLIE CLARK,
WARREN JACKSON,
WENDY YAN HOPPE, and
SHOSHANA MOSTOLLER,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Judge Nina Y. Wang
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preparation of Transcript at
Government Expense Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) and Motion to Toll Deadline for Rule
72 Objections to ECF No. 104, [Doc. 107], and Plaintiff’s First Supplement to Motion for
Preparation of Transcript at Government Expense Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) and
Motion to Toll Deadline for Rule 72 Objections to ECF No. 104, [Doc. 108] (collectively,
the “Motion”).
Plaintiff asks this Court to enter an order “directing preparation of the official
transcript of the March 30, 2026 status conference (ECF No. 100) at the expense of the
United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f).” 	[Doc. 107 at 1]. 	He also asks that the
Court extend the deadline to object to Judge Neureiter’s April 3, 2026 Recommendation
and Order on Various Motions, Including Plaintiff’s Request for Alternative Service (the
“Recommendation”), [Doc. 104]—currently set at April 17, 2026—“until 14 days after the
transcript is filed on the docket,” see [Doc. 107 at 1].
Case No. 1:25-cv-03807-NYW-NRN Document 109 filed 04/13/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 4

2
“In civil litigation a plaintiff is not entitled to a transcript as a matter of right.” Evans
v. City of Tulsa, 951 F.2d 1258, 1992 WL 2882, at *2 (10th Cir. Jan. 7, 1992). 	“Two
statutes must be considered whenever the district court receives a request to prepare
transcripts at the government’s expense.” 	Gonzales v. Riddle, No. 03-cv-05363-LJO-
DLB, 2008 WL 4723779, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2008). 	“First, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c)
defines the limited circumstances under which the court can direct the government to pay
for transcripts for a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis.” 	Id. 	That statute provides, in
pertinent part, that “the court may direct payment by the United States of the expenses of
. . . preparing a transcript of proceedings before a United States magistrate judge in any
civil or criminal case, if such transcript is required by the district court, in the case of
proceedings conducted under section 636(b) of this title.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) (emphasis
added).
Second, 28 U.S.C. § 753(f)—the statute cited in Plaintiff’s Motion—states that
“[f]ees for transcripts furnished in other proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in
forma pauperis shall also be paid by the United States if the trial judge or a circuit judge
certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question).” 28 U.S.C.
§ 753(f) (emphasis added).
Based on the plain language of these two statutes, Plaintiff is not entitled to a copy
of the Status Conference transcript at the government’s expense. First, § 1915 “expressly
limits the court’s authority to charge the United States for transcription expenses [to
instances] where the district court requires a transcript to review matters considered by a
magistrate judge.” 	Horton v. Doe, No. 09-cv-02220-WJM-KMT, 2012 WL 400352, at *1
(D. Colo. Feb. 8, 2012). This Court has not required that a copy of the transcript be filed
on the docket and affirmatively concludes that it does not require a copy of the transcript
to review any objections to Judge Neureiter’s Recommendation. While Judge Neureiter
may have discussed various issues with Plaintiff at the hearing, Judge Neureiter’s
analysis, findings, and rulings—i.e., the matters subject to objection under Rule 72, see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)–(b)—are all contained in his written Recommendation, see [Doc.
104]. 	Accordingly, the requirements of § 1915 have not been met here. 	See Horton,
2012 WL 400352, at *1 (denying motion requesting transcripts where the district judge
“ha[d] not indicated that he require[d] the transcripts sought by Plaintiff to review that
Recommendation”).
Section 753(f) is also inapplicable here. As set forth above, this statute permits a
party who has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal to obtain
transcripts at the government’s expense for purposes of that appeal. 	See 28 U.S.C.
§ 753(f); see also Toaz v. Lane, No. 3:17-cv-01425, 2019 WL 1264880, at *3 (M.D. Pa.
Mar. 19, 2019) (“[U]nder this statute, an indigent party is entitled to a transcript at public
expense only on appeal, and only if the indigent litigant demonstrates that the appeal is
not frivolous and presents a substantial question.”). There is no active appeal in this case,
nor has the Court entered any final, appealable order. While an objection to a magistrate
judge’s recommendation has similarities to an appeal, an objection to a magistrate judge’s
order or recommendation is nevertheless distinct from an appeal of a district judge’s final
order or judgment. 	Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)–(b) (discussing the process of
Case No. 1:25-cv-03807-NYW-NRN Document 109 filed 04/13/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 4

3
objecting to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive orders and recommendations), with Fed.
R. App. P. 4 (discussing the process of appealing a final order or judgment). 	Because
there is no appeal in this case, this statute does not apply. See Toaz, 2019 WL 1264880,
at *3 (finding motion for transcripts premature “as the transcript at issue is not sought for
the purpose of appellate review”).
Because there is no statutory basis for this Court to enter an order requiring the
government to bear the costs of preparing a transcript from the March 30 Status
Conference, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED to the extent he requests that relief.
However, to the extent Plaintiff’s Motion may be construed to request an extension
of the objection deadline, the Motion is GRANTED in part. 	To ensure that Plaintiff has
adequate time to prepare any objections in light of this Court’s determination that it will
not order the preparation of a transcript at the government’s expense, the deadline to
object to Judge Neureiter’s April 3 Recommendation is EXTENDED to 14 days after the
date of this Order.
Finally, Plaintiff is respectfully DIRECTED to review this Court’s Standing Order
Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in Court Filings. 	The
Standing Order requires all litigants to include an “AI Certification” with “[e]very filing”
indicating whether AI was used in drafting the filing. 	Although this Court has not struck
Plaintiff’s non-compliant filings thus far, he is expressly advised that his pro se status does
not exempt him from complying with the Standing Order, and all future filings shall contain
the required AI Certification. 	Future filings that do not comply with the Standing Order
may be stricken.1
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Preparation of Transcript at Government Expense
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) and Motion to Tille Deadline for Rule 72
Objections to ECF No. 104, [Doc. 107], considered alongside Plaintiff’s First
Supplement to Motion for Preparation of Transcript at Government Expense
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) and Motion to Tille Deadline for Rule 72
Objections to ECF No. 104, [Doc. 108], is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part;
(2) 	Plaintiff’s deadline to object to Judge Neureiter’s Recommendation and
Order on Various Motions, Including Plaintiff’s Request for Alternative
Service [Doc. 104] is EXTENDED to 14 days after the date of this Order;
1 	The 	Standing 	Order 	is 	available 	on 	the 	District 	of 	Colorado’s 	website 	at:
http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/NYW/NYW_Standing_Order_
Regarding_AI_Certification.pdf.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03807-NYW-NRN Document 109 filed 04/13/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 4

4
(3) 	Plaintiff is DIRECTED to review the Court’s Standing Order and Regarding
the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in Court Filings and is
ADVISED that future filings must comply with the Standing Order; and
(4) 	A copy of this Minute Order shall be mailed to:
John T. Hessert
General Delivery
Bellingham, WA 98225
DATED: April 13, 2026
Case No. 1:25-cv-03807-NYW-NRN Document 109 filed 04/13/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 4