Opinion
4:12-CR-3000
01-24-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. AMBER L. DIECKHOFF, Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on correspondence from the defendant (filing 64) that the Court has filed as a pro se motion for copies. The defendant has represented that she is indigent and requests that certain documents be provided free of charge. However, the defendant does not have a right to receive copies of documents without payment. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Lewis v. Precision Optics, Inc., 612 F.2d 1074, 1075 (8th Cir. 1980); see also, Jackson v. Fla. Dep't of Fin. Servs., 479 Fed. Appx. 289, 292-93 (11th Cir. 2012); Harless v. United States, 329 F.2d 397, 398-99 (5th Cir. 1964); Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661, 662 (6th Cir. 1964); Hullom v. Kent, 262 F.2d 862, 863-64 (6th Cir. 1959); In re Fullam, 152 F.2d 141, 141 (D.C. Cir. 1945). And the Court is particularly reluctant to subsidize the defendant's litigation expenses when she has not explained why she needs the copies she has requested. See, Jackson, 479 Fed. Appx. at 293; Douglas, 327 F.2d at 662; Parker v. Dir. of Dep't of Corrs, 2010 WL 7746630, at *1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 16, 2010). Therefore, the defendant's motion will be denied without prejudice.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The defendant's motion for copies (filing 64) is denied without prejudice.
BY THE COURT:
__________
John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge