Dennis Michael Gieck v. R. J. DONOVAN, Warden;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENNIS MICHAEL GIECK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
R. J. DONOVAN, Warden; et al.,
Defendants,
and
ROMERO, Chief Medical Officer; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-55775
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01460-DMS-
JMA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
FILED
NOV 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-55775 2
Dennis Michael Gieck, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We dismiss.
We are unable to consider Gieck’s contention that the district court erred by
granting defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law because Gieck failed
to provide any portion of the trial transcript. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Hall v.
Whitley, 935 F.2d 164, 165 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). To the extent that Gieck
seeks to challenge the district court’s denial of production of transcripts at
government expense, the district court did not abuse its discretion because Gieck
did not explain the issues that he would raise on appeal. See McKinney v.
Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1511-12 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by
Helling v. McKinney, 502 U.S. 903 (1991) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion
and noting that “[p]roduction of the transcript at government expense for an
appellant in forma pauperis in a civil case is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 753 if a trial
judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous and presents a substantial question”).
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --