Opinion
22-CV-884-JLS (BGS)
01-19-2024
PATRICK C. DOUGLAS, Petitioner, v. RICK HILL, Warden, et al., Respondents.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION REQUESTING RECORDS, REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
(ECF NO. 33)
Janis L. Sammartino, United States District Judge
Presently before the Court is Petitioner Patrick C. Douglas's Motion Requesting Records, Reporter's Transcript (“Mot.,” ECF No. 33). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Petitioner's Motion.
All citations to the Motion refer to the blue page numbers affixed to the top right corner of each page in the Court's CM/ECF system.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is currently incarcerated at Folsom State Prison and is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this habeas action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See ECF Nos. 2, 6, 17. In its December 5, 2023 Order (“Order,” ECF No. 27), the Court denied Petitioner's First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“FAP,” ECF No. 17) and issued a Certificate of Appealability as to all claims. The Clerk entered judgment on December 6. See ECF No. 28. Petitioner then filed a Notice of Appeal of this Court's judgment and Order. See ECF No. 30.
On January 8, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant, single-page Motion, requesting “from the district court reporter the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court; the transcripts of proceedings, if any[;] and a copy of certified copy of [sic] the docket entries prepared by the district clerk.” Mot. at 1. Petitioner indicates that “[t]he cost of the transcripts is to be paid by the United States under the Criminal Justice Act” but cites no other statute or caselaw to support his request. See id. Nor does Petitioner explain why he needs the requested documents. See id.
LEGAL STANDARD
There is no constitutional right to receive photocopies of documents free of charge. See Jones v. Franzen, 697 F.2d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 1983) (“[B]road as the constitutional concept of liberty is, it does not include the right to xerox.”); see also Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[N]umerous courts have rejected any constitutional right to free and unlimited photocopying.”), overruled on other grounds by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996).
Nor do litigants proceeding IFP have a statutory right to free copies of litigation-related documents in most circumstances. See In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “does not give the litigant a right to have documents copied and returned to him at government expense”); Arellano v. Blahnik, No. 16CV2412-CAB-MSB, 2020 WL 6319130, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2020). Indeed, as a general rule, “the expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress ....” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989) (alterations in original) (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976)).
In limited circumstances, however, Congress has authorized courts to order the United States to bear printing, copying, and transcript-related costs for litigants. First, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) allows a court to “direct payment by the United States of the expenses of . . . printing the record on appeal in any civil or criminal case, if such printing is required by the appellate court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c).
Second, 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) states that “[f]ees for transcripts . . . in habeas corpus proceedings to persons allowed to sue, defend, or appeal [IFP], shall be paid by the United States out of moneys appropriated for those purposes.” 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). Though § 753(f) requires habeas petitioners in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to show that their “suit or appeal is not frivolous and that the transcript is needed to decide the issue presented by the suit or appeal” before receiving a free transcript, § 753(f) includes no such limitation for habeas petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Id.
Lastly, 28 U.S.C. § 2250 allows a court “before whom [a writ of habeas corpus] is pending” to order certified copies of documents or parts of the record be provided, without cost, to a habeas petitioner proceeding IFP. The decision as to whether to provide said documents is within the discretion of the district court, which may require the petitioner to make a showing of need. See Cassidy v. United States, 304 F.Supp. 864, 867-68 (E.D. Mo. 1969) (“Congress did not intend that documents should be furnished without a showing of need.”), aff'd, 428 F.2d 585 (8th Cir. 1970); Tyler v. Cartledge, 584 Fed.Appx. 77, 78 (4th Cir. 2014) (“[P]rovision of [copies under 28 U.S.C. § 2250] is a matter of discretion with the district court before which the habeas petition is pending.”); Anderson v. Gillis, 236 Fed.Appx. 738, 739 (3d Cir. 2007) (concluding a district court need not provide copies of documents generated by the petitioner and filed by him previously).
DISCUSSION
The Court will first address Petitioner's request for original documents, then turn to his request for transcripts, and finally resolve his request for certified copies of docket entries.
First, to the extent that Petitioner asks the Court to send him original documents filed in this case, the Court is unpersuaded it has the power to do so. Petitioner cites no statute or authority-and the Court is unaware of any-allowing a district court to relinquish original documents into the possession of a party to a case. Therefore, the Court denies Petitioner's request for original documents.
Second, though 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) on its face appears to entitle Petitioner-who is proceeding IFP-to transcripts of proceedings before this Court free of charge, no reported hearings or proceedings occurred during this Court's resolution of the FAP. See generally Docket. As there were no proceedings in this Court from which a transcript can be produced, the Court denies Petitioner's request for transcripts as moot.
Third, it does not appear that either 28 U.S.C. § 2250 or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) allow this Court to provide certified copies of the docket entries to Petitioner in this case. As this Court has already denied Petitioner's FAP, see Order, the FAP is no longer “pending” before this Court, so 28 U.S.C. § 2250 is inapposite. Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) authorizes a court to order the government to bear the cost of providing a printed record only when said record is required by the appellate court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c); Duwenhoegger v. Miles, No. 17-CV-1432 (PJS/TNL), 2017 WL 2799155, at *1 (D. Minn. June 28, 2017) (denying a habeas petitioner's request for free copies of documents in the record where “production of th[e] materials [was not] necessary” to the appellate court). Here, Petitioner does not argue that the Ninth Circuit has required him to print and provide a certified copy of the entire record on appeal. See generally Mot. And, though Ninth Circuit Rule 30-1 requires parties to an appeal to file relevant excerpts of the record alongside their briefs, Ninth Circuit Rule 30-1.3 exempts litigants proceeding pro se from this requirement. 9th Cir. R. 30-1. As both statutes appear inapposite, the Court denies Petitioner's request for certified copies of all docket entries.
Even if 28 U.S.C. § 2250 applies, Petitioner has not shown a specific need for a certified copy of all documents and parts of the record. See Cassidy, 304 F.Supp. at 867-68. For instance, Petitioner should already have access to documents and portions of the record that he created and filed himself, as well as those provided to him by Respondents or by this Court.
As Petitioner has cited no authority to support his contention that he is entitled to the original documents filed in this case, there are no transcripts associated with proceedings before this Court, and Petitioner lacks a constitutional or statutory right to free photocopies of all documents in the record at this stage of the litigation, the Court DENIES Petitioner's Motion (ECF No. 33).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner's Motion Requesting Records, Reporter's Transcript (ECF No. 33).
IT IS SO ORDERED.