Opinion
Case No. 1:12-cv-695
04-16-2013
ZOSER-RA NETERKEHT, Plaintiff, v. MICHELLE LONGWORTH, et al., Defendants.
Weber, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
ORDER
Plaintiff Zoser-Ra Neterkeht, proceeding pro se, brings this action against individual defendants Kathi Makoroff, M.D., Rose Lucas, Sharon Dickman, and A. Antoni (collectively, the "Children's Hospital defendants"); Joe Deters, Jennifer Deering, Kay Fields and Lindsay Wallpe (collectively, the "County defendants"); and Cincinnati Police Officers Michelle Longworth, James Wiggington, and David Knox (collectively, the "City defendants"). Plaintiff filed the original complaint on September 20, 2012. (Doc. 3). The Children's Hospital defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on October 24, 2012 (Doc. 7); the County defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) on November 5, 2012 (Doc. 11); and the City defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on December 3, 2012 (Doc. 21). Plaintiff thereafter sought and was granted two extensions of time until February 5, 2013, to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint and to respond to defendants' dispositive motions. (Docs. 23, 26).
Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint on February 5, 2013 (Doc. 27), which he resubmitted by order of the Court on February 15, 2013, with a proposed amended complaint that had personal identifiers redacted. (Doc. 34). On February 5, 2013, plaintiff also filed a motion to stay his response to defendants' dispositive motions until defendants had responded to the proposed amended complaint. (Doc. 29). In addition, plaintiff has filed two motions to submit a reduced number of copies of documents that he files with the Court. (Docs. 28, 35).
I. Plaintiff's motions for leave to submit a reduced number of copies (Docs. 28, 35)
Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an order instructing the Clerk to make copies of the documents he files with the Court and serve the documents on all parties named in the proposed amended complaint. (Docs. 28, 35). Plaintiff alleges he is indigent and does not have the funds to pay for photocopying. Plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court has affirmed that an indigent litigant should have an opportunity to present his claims fairly. (Id. at 2, citing Ross v. Moffitt, 417U.S. 600, 612, 615 (1974) (acknowledging that states must insure indigent criminal defendants have an adequate opportunity to present their claims fairly and holding there is no equal protection right to appointed counsel for indigent criminal defendants seeking discretionary appellate review).
Indigent civil litigants are not entitled to free copies but instead must bear their own litigation expenses. Aden v. Herrington, No. 1:12-cv-86, 2012 WL 5288033, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 25, 2012) (Bowman, M.J.) (citing Dujardine v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, No. 1:07-cv-701, 2009 WL 3401172, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 19, 2009) (collecting cases)). The Court will therefore deny plaintiff's motions to file a reduced number of copies.
II. Plaintiff's motion to stay his response to defendants' dispositive motions (Doc. 29).
Plaintiff asks the Court to stay his response to defendants' pending dispositive motions until after defendants have responded to the proposed amended complaint. (Doc. 29). Plaintiff argues that because different defendants are named in the proposed amended complaint and factual details have been added, the pending dispositive motions are now moot. The Cincinnati Children's defendants and the City defendants oppose plaintiff's request for a stay on the grounds that the proposed amended complaint is dilatory and would be futile. (Docs. 33, 37). They argue that the Court should therefore deny leave to amend the complaint and plaintiff's request for a stay.
Although the Court granted plaintiff an extension of time until February 5, 2013, to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint (Doc. 26), the Court has not yet ruled on the motion and has not granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. Accordingly, defendants' pending dispositive motions pertaining to the original complaint (Docs. 7, 11, 21) are not moot. The Court will therefore deny plaintiff's request for a stay and order plaintiff to respond to the pending dispositive motions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) Plaintiff's motions for leave to file a reduced number of copies (Docs. 28, 35) are DENIED. (2) Plaintiff's motion for a stay (Doc. 29) is DENIED. Plaintiff shall have up to and including May 7, 2013, to respond to the pending dispositive motions filed by defendants in this matter.
______________________
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge