Muhammad v. Arizona Department of Corrections et al

Filing 26

ORDER that Plaintiff's 24 Motion to Produce Copies is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 8/7/2012.(LFIG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Riki Rashaad Muhammad,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.,)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

No. CV-11-1890-PHX-SMM (LOA)
ORDER

15
This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion to Produce Copies. (Doc. 24) (ex parte).
16
Plaintiff states that he was granted in forma pauperis, but that the Arizona Department of
17
Corrections did not allow him “indigent” status, and therefore, he must pay for all copies and
18
postage. He requests that all “necessary” copies be produced.
19
First, Plaintiff’s request does not contain a certificate of service. Pursuant to
20
Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(a), every pleading, motion, and similar paper must be served upon each party.

21
In view of Plaintiff’s failure to serve the pending motion on defendants, the Court will deny

22
that motion.

23
Second, Plaintiff does not specify which documents he wishes to receive. He only
24
requests all “necessary” copies. It is the Court’s practice, and the docket reflects the same,
25
that a copy of the documents is already being sent to Plaintiff.
26
Finally, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status does not exempt him from paying certain
27
court costs and litigation expenses. The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, permits

28

1

the waiver of prepayment of fees and costs for in forma pauperis litigants. 28 U.S.C. §

2

1915(a). Aside from the specific costs waived pursuant to § 1915(a), no other statute

3

authorizes courts to commit federal monies for payment of the necessary expenses in a civil

4

suit brought by an indigent litigant. See Valdez v. Linder, 2008 WL 5435896, at *10 (D.

5

Mont. April 25, 2008); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 159 (3rd Cir. 1993); Moss v. ITT

6

Continental Baking Co., 83 F.R.D. 624, 625 (E.D. Va. 1979) (quoting Haymes v. Smith, 73

7

F.R.D. 572, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 1976)).

8

Based on the foregoing, the Court will deny the motion.

9

Accordingly,

10

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Produce Copies, doc. 24, is DENIED.

11

DATED this 7th day of August, 2012.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-