Opinion
Case No.: 14CV2914 BEN (PCL)
12-16-2015
LANCE R. MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. T. HARRINSTON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE
[Docket No. 28]
Lance R. Martin, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a "Motion for Transcripts at Government Expense." (Docket No. 28.) However, Plaintiff is not seeking transcripts. He is requesting "a conformed copy of [his] Second Amended Complaint . . . with exhibits filed on court record dated May 20, 2015." (Id.)
Plaintiff's SAC, including exhibits, is approximately 130 pages. --------
Plaintiff was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, his initial complaint, First Amended Complaint, and SAC were each dismissed for failing to state a claim. (Docket Nos. 3, 17, 22.) The SAC was dismissed without leave to amend based on futility and Plaintiff filed an appeal. (Docket Nos. 22, 24.) Plaintiff indicates that he needs a copy of the SAC for purposes of quoting from it in his appellate brief. However, it is not clear why Plaintiff does not have a copy of his own pleading or why the Court should provide a copy at government expense.
Generally, a plaintiff's IFP status does not authorize the court to "to commit federal monies for payment of the necessary expenses in a civil suit brought by an indigent litigant." Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 158-59 (3d Cir. 1993); see also United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976) (discussing free transcripts and noting the established rule that "expenditure of public funds is proper only when authorized by Congress"); Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not waive payment of indigent's witness fees). It appears that Plaintiff is simply attempting to obtain a free copy of his own document without any explanation why he should not pay for the copy or why he did not retain a copy of his own pleading. However, Plaintiff is not entitled to "have documents copied and returned to him at government expense." In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990).
Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 16, 2015
/s/_________
Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge