From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Bay

United States District Court, N.D. California
Apr 26, 2010
No. C 07-639 MHP (pr) (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2010)

Opinion

No. C 07-639 MHP (pr).

April 26, 2010


ORDER


Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is DENIED. (Docket # 59.) Defendants were not in default, and default had not been entered, at the time he filed his motion. Plaintiff states in his motion that he did not receive defendants' motion for summary judgment because they sent it to the wrong apartment number (i.e., they sent it to apartment 235 instead of apartment 237) at the correct street address at which he now lives. The clerk will send him a replacement copy of the summary judgment moving papers.

Plaintiff filed a request for a copy of the court file for this action and later filed a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to obtain a copy of the complaint. The request for a copy of the entire court file is DENIED. (Docket # 41.) The request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as unnecessary because the court already granted plaintiff leave to proceed as a pauper. (Docket # 62.) The clerk will send to plaintiff a copy of his complaint, amended complaint, the 341 pages of exhibits to his pleading, and the order of partial dismissal and service. As to any other documents he wants from the court file, plaintiff must pay the standard photocopying charges, because the court does not provide free copies of court documents to litigants or non-litigants. The clerk will send plaintiff a copy of the photocopy order form for him to complete for any documents he wants copied from the court file. Plaintiff states in his pauper application that he is unemployed and cannot pay for photocopies. Plaintiff is informed that, if his case survives summary judgment, he will have to pay his own costs for preparing for trial and getting himself and his witnesses to the courthouse in San Francisco because the court does not pay travel or other expenses related to a pro se litigant's presentation of his case at trial. See generally Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1992);Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989).

Plaintiff's opposition to the motion for summary judgment must be filed and served on defendants' counsel no later than May 28, 2010. Defendants' reply, if any, must be filed and served on plaintiff no later than June 14, 2010. No further extensions of any of these deadlines should be expected.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Taylor v. Bay

United States District Court, N.D. California
Apr 26, 2010
No. C 07-639 MHP (pr) (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2010)
Case details for

Taylor v. Bay

Case Details

Full title:BRYAN N. TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. PELICAN BAY; et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Apr 26, 2010

Citations

No. C 07-639 MHP (pr) (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2010)