Ronald Roy Henderson v. United States
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- (PC) Solorio v. Sullivan (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2023)
- (PC) Sekona v. Francis (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2025)
- (PC) Brummett v. Martinez (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2025)
- (PC) Suarez v. Clark (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2024)
- Shaw v. Davis (District Court, D. Nevada 2024)
- Oshiro v. Bachman (District Court, D. Nevada 2024)
- (PC) Gray v. Clark (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2023)
- dela Cruz v. Brennan (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2023)
- Ross v. Johnson (District Court, D. Nevada 2023)
- Beitman v. Correct Care Solutions (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 2022)
- Ruiz v. Romero (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2022)
- Fierro v. Wilmot (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 2021)
- Bearchild v. Cobban (District Court, D. Montana 2021)
- Welch v. Baca (District Court, D. Nevada 2021)
- (PC) Goff v. Gamez (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2020)
- Singleton v. Kernan (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2020)
- Stewart v. Mr. Berkebile (District Court, D. Montana 2020)
- Stewart v. Jovanovich (District Court, D. Montana 2019)
- Anderson v. United States of America (District Court, W.D. Washington 2019)
- Knutson v. Price (In re Price) (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California 2009)
- Arthur G. Williams, Jr. v. Pima County Board of Supervisors (9th Cir. 1993)
- Ludwig Von Der Luhe v. Terrence Golden United States General Services Administration (9th Cir. 1993)
- Larry Wilson v. Dave Smith, and Roger Jacobs Lt. Rowell (9th Cir. 1992)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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 § 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 § 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.