Opinion
2:20-cv-00066-KJD-VCF
02-22-2023
RAYMOND PADILLA, Plaintiffs, v. OFFICER ROBERT KNICKERBOCKER, OFFICER DARYL REITZ, OFFICER ALEX OCHOA, OFFICER DAVID BROOKS, PATRICK FISCHER, KIMBERLY SPANNENBERGER, ELIZABETH A. MERCER, GENEVIEVE CRAGGS, AGNES M. LEXIS, Defendants.
ORDER
CAM FERENBACH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court are the motion for print out of motions (ECF No. 68) and motion for objections (hearing requested) (ECF Nos. 69 and 70).
While “prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts,” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977), there is no constitutional right to receive photocopies free of charge. Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). The rule prohibiting free photocopies is the same for plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis. See In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990) (Title 28 U.S.C. section 1915 “waives only ‘prepayment of fees and costs and security ...' ” [but] does not give the litigant a right to have documents copied and returned to him at government expense). Plaintiff has not shown he has been denied access to obtaining his own copy and, therefore, his request for free copies of the pending motions is denied.
Under LR 10-1, an attorney or pro se party who wishes to receive a file-stamped copy of any pleading or other paper must submit one additional copy and, if by mail, a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope. A party who is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis need not submit a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope.
Copies of court filings must be obtained through the clerk's office. The court's schedule of fees is attached, and the copying cost fees are highlighted.
In plaintiff's motion for objections and hearing (ECF Nos. 69 and 70), plaintiff is moving to exclude (1) information concerning his prior convictions; (2) information concerning Plaintiff's alleged gang affiliation; and (3) information and/or photos concerning District Court Case No. C-16-318579-1, and Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 73353. Plaintiff's motion is a premature motion in limine. Plaintiff may re-file at the appropriate time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for print out of motions (ECF No. 68) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motion for objections (hearing requested) (ECF Nos. 69 and 70), is DENIED without prejudice.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985).
This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party's attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.