Opinion
Case No. 2:12-cv-01516-APG-NJK
06-08-2015
JOHN REDMAN, Plaintiff(s), v. D.K. JENNINGS, et al., Defendant(s).
ORDER
(Docket No. 84)
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to extend his copy work limit. Docket No. 84. Defendants filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 86. No reply was filed. The Court finds the motion properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the motion is hereby DENIED.
An inmate has no constitutional right to free photocopying. Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1991). Pursuant to NDOC regulations, inmates can only accrue a maximum of $100 debt for copy work expenses for all cases. See, e.g., Weddle v. Baker, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 151674, *3 (D. Nev. Oct. 27, 2014). "In this district, courts have found that they can order a prison to extend limited photocopying when it is necessary for an inmate to provide copies to the Court and other parties." Id. (citing Allen v. Clark Cnty. Det. Ctr., 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 31756 (D. Nev. Mar. 11, 2011)).
The pending motion merely indicates that Plaintiff has exhausted his allotted amount of copy expenses. See Docket No. 8 at 2. The motion fails to explain how Plaintiff has used his copy expenses thus far, what additional copywork is needed in relation to this case, and why other methods of copying are not available (including handwriting copies or using carbon paper). Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 8, 2015
/s/_________
NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE