Opinion
2:11-cv-01850-GMN -VCF
06-04-2012
MICHAEL A. CLARK, Plaintiff, v. KELLY BELANDER, et al., Defendant.
ORDER
Before the court are plaintiff Michael A. Clark's Motion for Clerk to Serve All Documents on File and Filed in Future Upon A.G. (#4), Motion for Hearing Re: Motion (#2) to Extend Prison Copywork Limit (#5), and Motion for Copies of All Docs Filed and on File to be Served Upon Plaintiff (#6). Background
Plaintiff Clark filed a motion/application to proceed in forma pauperis (#1) and a motion to extend prison copywork limit (#2) on November 16, 2011. On November 21, 2011, the court denied plaintiff's motion/application (#1) due to plaintiff's failure to submit a completed and signed financial certificate as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)-(2). (#3). The court held that "[p]laintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to either submit a complete in forma pauperis application, or pay the full $350.00 filing fee." Id. On December 1, 2011, plaintiff filed the instant motions. (#4, #5, and #6). On December 20, 2011, plaintiff filed another motion/application to proceed in forma pauperis. (#7). On February 28, 2012, the court issued a screening order deferring ruling on the pending motions (#4, #5, and #6) and the in forma pauperis motion (#7) until the court determines if plaintiff's civil action may proceed. (#8). The court ordered the clerk to file plaintiff's complaint, which the court dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Id. The clerk filed plaintiff's complaint on February 28, 2012. (#9).
On April 2, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to amend/correct complaint (#9). (#10). On April 3, 2012, the court issued an order permitting plaintiff to file an amended complaint with thirty (30) days from the entry of the order. (#11). On May 7, 2012, plaintiff filed an amended complaint (#13), a motion for all motions on file to be decided (#14), a motion for copy of this complaint and all future filings to be stamped, filed, and served upon all respondents for defendants and plaintiff by clerk (#15), and a motion for recusal of Judge Cam Ferenbach (#16). On May 23, 2012, the court issued an order denying plaintiff's motion/application (#7), ordering plaintiff to pay the filing fee within thirty (30) days, and denying all pending motions related to the service of filings, the extension of copy work, and the recusal of judges (#2, #10, #14, #15, and #16). (#17).
The court denied plaintiff's in forma pauperis motion based on a finding that he is subject to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Id. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), if a prisoner has "on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or an appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," that prisoner shall be precluded from commencing any new cases in forma pauperis except upon a showing of an imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Id. Pending Motions (#4, #5, and #6)
In plaintiff's remaining motions, he asks this court to serve documents on the Attorney General, conduct a hearing on the motion to extend copywork (#2), and provide him with copies of all documents filed in this action. (#4, #5, and #6).
Pursuant to § 1915(d), if a party is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, "[t]he officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties..." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). As plaintiff's motion/application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied (#17), plaintiff is not entitled to have the officers of the court serve the defendants. Id. Plaintiff's request for the court to serve documents (#4) is denied. The court denied the motion to extend copywork (#2) on May 23, 2012. (#17). The request for a hearing (#5) on the motion is moot.
The statute providing authority to proceed in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not include the right to obtain court documents without payment. Although the Ninth Circuit has not spoken on the issue, courts in other jurisdictions have not allowed plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis to receive free copies of documents from the court without the plaintiff demonstrating a specific showing of need. See, e.g., Collins v. Goord, 438 F.Supp. 2d 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); Guinn v. Hoecker, 43 F.3d 1483 (10th Cir. 1994) (no right to free copy of any document in record unless plaintiff demonstrates specific need); In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526 (6th Cir. 1990) (28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not give litigant right to have documents copied at government expense); Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661, 662 (6th Cir. 1964) (no free copy of court orders). As plaintiff's motion/application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied (#17), even if plaintiff demonstrated a "specific need" for the copies, there are no grounds for the court to provide plaintiff with copies of the documents in this action. The request for copies of all documents filed (#6) is denied.
Accordingly, and for good cause shown,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Michael A. Clark's Motion for Clerk to Serve All Documents on File and Filed in Future Upon A.G. (#4), Motion for Hearing Re: Motion to Extend Prison Copywork Limit (#5), and Motion for Copies of All Docs Filed and on File to be Served Upon Plaintiff (#6) are DENIED.
_______________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE