Opinion
Case No. 2:14-cv-01725-RFB-NJK
03-05-2015
PETER J. HELFRICH, Plaintiff(s), v. DWIGHT NEVEN, et al., Defendant(s).
ORDER (Docket Nos. 16, 59)
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to extend prison copy work limits, filed on November 13, 2014. Docket No. 16. The Court has considered Plaintiff's motion, Defendants' response, and Plaintiff's reply. Docket Nos. 16, 19, 23.
Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to extend prison copy work limits, filed on February 9, 2015. Docket No. 59. Defendants did not file a response. See Docket. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d), "[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion."
For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to extend prison copy work limits at Docket No. 16, and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to extend prison copy work limits at Docket No. 59. I. Background
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. On October 29, 2014, the Court reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and stayed the action for ninety days to allow the parties an opportunity to settle the dispute. Docket No. 8. The Court also granted Plaintiff a $5 increase of his copy work limit. Id., at 8. On November 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an additional $45 increase in his copy work limit. Docket No. 16. Defendants objected to Plaintiff's motion because the case was stayed and no papers were to be filed during the stay. Docket No. 19.
On January 30, 2015, the parties participated in an inmate early mediation conference, but no settlement was reached. Docket No. 46. The case returned to its normal litigation track. Id. On February 5, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 54. On February 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second motion to extend prison copy work limits. Docket No. 59. Plaintiff requests "a reasonable allowance" of copy work for documents relevant to this proceeding, including pleadings, motions, responses, replies, and notices. Id., at 2. Defendants did not file a response. See Docket. II. Analysis
Plaintiff asks the Court to order the Nevada Department of Corrections ("NDOC") to increase his prison photocopy budget. Docket Nos. 16, 59. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to free photocopying. Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir.1989) ("numerous courts have rejected any constitutional right to free and unlimited photocopying")). Pursuant to NDOC administrative regulation 722.01(7)(D), inmates "can only accrue a maximum of $100 debt for copy work expenses for all cases, not per case." The Ninth Circuit has concluded that "an inmate has a right to photocopying . . . when, and only when, necessary to guarantee him meaningful access to the courts." Hiser v. Franklin, 94 F.3d 1287, 1294 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1996). In this District, a court can order a prison to provide limited photocopying "when it is necessary for an inmate to provide copies to the court and other parties." Allen v. Clark Cnty. Det. Or., 2011 WL 886343, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 11, 2011) (finding plaintiff demonstrated a need to increase the copy work limit when he provided a copy of his inmate account statement showing a negative balance of $199 and the case was pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit).
The regulation also provides that carbon paper shall be made available to any inmate who requests it for legal purposes.
Here, Plaintiff has shown the need for additional photocopying. Plaintiff has represented that the he has already used the $5 increase in his copy work budget that he was granted on October 29, 2014. See Docket No. 16. Plaintiff attached over 100 pages of "exhibits" to his first motion to illustrate his need for an increase in his copy work budget. See Docket No. 16. These "exhibits" appear to be the photocopies that Plaintiff made with his copy work budget. Plaintiff represents that the cost of copying is $0.10 per page. Id., at 4. Because this case is in the early stage of litigation, Plaintiff has demonstrated the need to have his prison copy work limit increased by $10. The Court advises Plaintiff, however, that he should use his copying privileges sparingly, and utilize carbon paper to duplicate documents when possible. III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for order to extend prison copy work limits (Docket No. 16) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for order to extend prison copy work limits (Docket No. 59) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Nevada Department of Corrections shall increase Plaintiff's copy work limit so that he is allotted an additional $10 worth of copy privileges.
DATED: March 5, 2015
/s/_________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge