Opinion
Case No. 1:15-cv-645
11-09-2017
BRIAN K. ALFORD, Plaintiff, v. GARY MOHR, et al., Defendants.
Dlott, J.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for copies (Doc. 52) and motions for extensions of time (Docs. 66, 68).
Plaintiff requests "a copy of the current docket" in this case, including a copy of the motion for appointment of counsel and specified attachments, at no cost to him. (Doc. 52). Plaintiff does not have a right to free copies and he has not shown that he will be prejudiced if his request is denied. An indigent plaintiff does not have the statutory right to receive copies of court documents without payment. See Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661, 662 (6th Cir. 1964) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not include the right to obtain copies of court documents and denying the plaintiff's request for copies of papers he sent to the court in the absence of a showing of the need for such copies). Further, there is no constitutional requirement that an indigent prisoner be provided with free copies. Thomas v. Croft, No. 2:10-cv-74, 2010 WL 1629628, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 21, 2010) (citing Fazzini v. Gluch, 875 F.2d 863 (table), 1989 WL 54125, at *2 (6th Cir. May 23, 1989) (the right of access to courts is not infringed where access to a law library or to the assistance of legally trained personnel is provided); Dugar v. Coughlin, 613 F. Supp. 849, 854 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (charging a reasonable amount for copying does not infringe the right of access to courts)). Accordingly, plaintiff's request for copies of documents (Doc. 52) is DENIED.
Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file a reply in support of his motion for appointment of counsel/leave to file a second supplemental complaint and a reply in support of his motion for default judgment. (Doc. 66). Plaintiff also moves for an extension of time to respond to defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. (Doc. 68). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss on October 26, 2017 (Doc. 81) and replies in support of his motions on November 8, 2017 (Docs. 85, 86). Plaintiff's motions for extension of time (Docs. 66, 68) are therefore DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 11/9/17
/s/_________
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge