Opinion
Civil 1:13-cv-00277-FDW
09-23-2022
BRANDON MICHAEL PICKENS, Petitioner, v. BRAD PERRITT, Respondent.
ORDER
Frank D. Whitney, United States District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Petitioner's letters [Docs. 45, 47], which the Court construes as motions for copies; and Petitioner's letter to the undersigned [Doc. 46].
Pro se Petitioner Brandon Michael Pickens (“Petitioner”) is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina. On October 21, 2013, Petitioner filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus together with the $5.00 filing fee. [Doc. 1; see 10/21/2013 Docket Entry]. The Court granted Respondent's motion for summary judgment and dismissed this action on December 19, 2013. [Docs. 4, 11].
Petitioner recently sent two letters to the Clerk of Court, requesting copies of certain documents in this case. [Docs. 45, 47]. The Court will construe these letters as motions for copies, which the Court will deny. These motions do not include a case caption, are directed to the Clerk of Court, and one of them refers to multiple cases in the same letter. [See id.]. Petitioner also fails to include payment for the copies he requests.
A litigant is ordinarily required to pay his own litigation expenses, even if he is indigent. See United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976) (“The established rule is that the expenditure of public funds is proper only when authorized by Congress....”). The Court, therefore, declines to provide the Petitioner with a free copy of docket entries in this case and will deny these motions. The Court is not a copying service. The Petitioner may, however, pay for the copies he seeks at the standard rate of $.50 per page. See https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/court-fees. The Court will, however, instruct the Clerk to provide the Petitioner with a copy of the current docket sheet as a courtesy.
Also before the Court is a letter Petitioner directed to the undersigned in which Petitioner asks the undersigned “to monitor” one of Petitioner's other cases assigned to a different District Judge, Civil Case No. 1:21-cv-00030-MR. [Doc. 46 at 1]. Petitioner also states that he intends to file a motion in the instant case that will give the undersigned “the power [needed] to right something that was truely [sic] wrong.” [Id.]. Petitioner then states, “i'll make a deal with you by agreeing not to even file this ‘mysterious motion' in case 1:13-cv-277-FDW if I don't prove all my claims in case 1:21-cv-30-MR.” [Id. at 2]. He continues, “[u]ntil then, between me and you, just keep your eye on case 1:21-cv-30-MR because if I calculated this right then things are about to get very interesting very quick!” [Id.]. This letter is wholly improper and will be stricken from the record in this matter. Litigants should never direct letters to the judges assigned to their cases. Any relief sought must be presented in a proper motion. Moreover, there are no “deals” made as suggested by Petitioner and the Court does not sanction withholding information from other parties or the public.
The Petitioner is cautioned that the Court will not respond to any further letters or other miscellaneous filings in this case; only motions will be ruled on by the Court. The Petitioner is also advised that the Court will not docket any future filings that include or relate to more than one case. Moreover, future improper filings may be stricken from the record in this matter and/or subject Petitioner to other sanctions.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner's motions [Docs. 45, 47] are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's letter [Doc. 46] is STRICKEN from the record in this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any documents Petitioner files in this matter referencing multiple case numbers will be DOCKETED “Court Only” for record-keeping purposes and the original document shall be returned to Petitioner.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to send Petitioner a copy of the docket sheet in this matter.