Tatum v. United States of America et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
VERNON J TATUM, JR CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS No. 25-178
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. SECTION I
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is pro se plaintiff Vernon J. Tatum’s (“Tatum”) motion1 to
“proceed in forma pauperis to obtain a transcript” of an August 19, 2025 show cause
hearing. Tatum has already been allowed to proceed as a pauper in this matter.2 The
Court construes this motion as a motion to obtain a transcript at the United States’
expense.3
On June 17, 2025, this Court issued a minute entry scheduling a status
conference for August 5, 2025, at 10 A.M. and directing both parties to submit a
written status report no later than five working days prior to the status conference.4
Tatum, however, failed to submit a written status report by this deadline. This Court
accordingly ordered Tatum to show cause at a hearing on August 19, 2025 (the “show
cause hearing”) why this case should not be dismissed due to Tatum’s failure to
prosecute the claim.5 Tatum appeared for the show cause hearing on August 19, 2025,
1 R. Doc. No. 50.
2 R. Doc. No. 3.
3 The Court construes these filings liberally as they were filed pro se. See Moore v.
McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994).
4 R. Doc. No. 17.
5 R. Doc. No. 21.
Case 2:25-cv-00178-LMA-EJD Document 51 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 4

2
without a written status report, and was admonished for his repeated failure to abide
by this Court’s order to provide a written status report.6
Tatum subsequently filed a motion7 for judicial disqualification, which this
Court denied.8 On December 3, 2025, the Small Business Administration (“SBA”)
filed a motion9 to dismiss Tatum’s complaint for a failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or,
alternatively, for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. Tatum did not file an
opposition to the motion. However, on December 23, 2025, Tatum filed a motion10 to
“pause” the SBA’s motion to dismiss. His motion to “pause” asked that this Court
withhold ruling on the SBA’s motion to dismiss until the Fifth Circuit could rule on
his interlocutory appeal of this Court’s order denying his motion for judicial
disqualification.11 On January 5, 2026, the Court denied Tatum’s motion, finding that
the order denying judicial qualification was not immediately appealable.12 In the
same order and reasons, the Court granted the SBA’s motion and dismissed Tatum’s
complaint with prejudice for a failure to state a cognizable claim.13 Tatum filed a
notice of appeal on March 9, 2026.14
6 R. Doc. No. 22.
7 R. Doc. No. 23.
8 R. Doc. No. 24.
9 R. Doc. No. 33.
10 R. Doc. No. 43.
11 See id.; R. Doc. No. 43-1, at 3.
12 R. Doc. No. 44, at 4, 14.
13 Id. at 14.
14 R. Doc. No. 47.
Case 2:25-cv-00178-LMA-EJD Document 51 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Title 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) provides that the United States shall pay fees for
transcripts furnished in non-criminal proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in
forma pauperis “if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not
frivolous (but presents a substantial question).” “Free transcripts are provided only
when a party raises a substantial question on appeal and demonstrates a particular
need for the transcript.” Dillon v. Sessions, 20 F.3d 1169, 1169 (5th Cir. 1994).
Tatum has not identified the issues he intends to raise on appeal in his
motion,15 and in his notice of appeal he solely states he was “aggrieved” by the Court’s
judgment “granting defendant a summary judgment with prejudice.”16 The Court
therefore cannot determine whether the appeal is frivolous or whether Tatum “raises
a substantial question on appeal.” Id. Moreover, Tatum has “demonstrated no
particular need for a transcript.” See Harvey v. Andrist, 754 F.2d 569, 571 (5th Cir.
1985).
The only transcript in this matter is for a rule to show cause hearing in which
the Court admonished Tatum’s repeated failure to comply with this Court’s orders
and informed both parties that they may file motions for summary judgment if they
desired.17 Only the SBA chose to file a motion for summary judgment. However, the
Court never reached the SBA’s arguments with respect to summary judgment and
15 R. Doc. No. 50.
16 R. Doc. No. 47, at 1. Contrary to Tatum’s contention, the Court did not grant
summary judgment in favor of the SBA. The Court dismissed Tatum’s complaint
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). R. Doc. No. 44, at 12–13. In light of his pro se status, the
Court will liberally construe Tatum’s notice of appeal to indicate that he intends to
appeal this Court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. See Moore, 30 F.3d at 620.
17 R. Doc. No. 24, at 17.
Case 2:25-cv-00178-LMA-EJD Document 51 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 4

4
rested its dismissal on Tatum’s failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).18 Tatum has not explained why a transcript of the
rule to show cause hearing is needed for his appeal.
Accordingly, Tatum has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to a free
transcript.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to obtain a transcript at the United States’
expense is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, April 30, 2026.
_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18 R. Doc. No. 44, at 12–13.
Case 2:25-cv-00178-LMA-EJD Document 51 Filed 04/30/26 Page 4 of 4