Fulton v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 18

ORDER that Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Reconsideration is denied; 14 "Motion to Obtain Transcripts, Documents, and... Relevant Data" is denied; 15 Motion to Adjust, Reduce, Suspend and/or Waive Court Fees is denied; 16 Motion to Request Conformed Copies is denied; 17 Motion for Discovery and to Appoint Counsel is denied. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 4/1/2013.(LFIG)

1

WO

KM

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Carl David Fulton,

10
11
12

No. CV 12-658-PHX-GMS (BSB)
Plaintiff,

vs.

ORDER

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Carl David Fulton, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-

16

Yuma, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an

17

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a May 1, 2012 Order, the Court granted

18

the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend.

19

On June 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time, which the Court

20

granted in an August 7, 2012 Order. Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within

21

the new 30-day deadline. On September 20, 2012, the Clerk of Court entered a Judgment

22

dismissing this action for failure to comply with a Court order.

23

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration” (Doc. 13),

24

“Motion to Obtain Transcripts, Documents, Instruments, and All Relevant Data”

25

(Doc. 14), “Motion to Adjust, Reduce, Suspend and/or Waive Court Fees” (Doc. 15);

26

Motion to Request Conformed Copies (Doc. 16), and a Motion for Discovery and to

27

Appoint Counsel (Doc. 17). The Court will deny the Motions.

28

...

1

I.

Motion for Reconsideration

2

“Motions to reconsider are appropriate only in rare circumstances.” Defenders of

3

Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “The purpose of a motion

4

for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly

5

discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985).

6

Such motions should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the

7

court had already thought through – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F.

8

Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99,

9

101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).

10

Plaintiff has not made any arguments in support of his Motion for

11

Reconsideration. However, the Court has reviewed the dismissal of this action and finds

12

no basis to reconsider its decision. The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s Motion for

13

Reconsideration.

14

II.

Motions for Copies, Documents, and Discovery

15

To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking copies of documents filed in this case, the

16

Clerk of Court charges 50 cents per page for reproducing any record or paper. See

17

Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees & 4, foll. 28 U.S.C. § 1914. An inmate has no right

18

to free copies of pleadings. See In Re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 127 (6th Cir. 1990) (per

19

curiam) (28 U.S.C. § 1915 “does not give a litigant a right to have documents copied and

20

returned to him at government expense”). Further, the Ninth Circuit has rejected any

21

constitutional right to unlimited free photocopying. See Johnson v. Moore, 936 F.2d 921,

22

923 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam), superceded on other grounds, 948 F.2d 517 (9th Cir.

23

1991) (per curiam); and Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1989) (rejecting

24

any constitutional right to free and unlimited photocopying) (citing Jones v. Franzen, 697

25

F.2d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 1983) (“[B]road as the constitutional concept of liberty is, it does

26

not include the right to xerox.”). The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s motions for

27

copies.

28

-2-

1

To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking documents and other information from the

2

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, this case is closed and discovery is no longer available

3

to Plaintiff.

4

The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s Motions for copies, documents, and

5

discovery (Docs. 14, 16, and 17).

6

III.

7
8
9

Motion to Adjust, Reduce, Suspend and/or Waive Court Fees
Plaintiff asks that the Court reduce or waive the filing fee for this case, or

alternatively, suspend collection of the fee for 360 days.
Title 28 U.S.C. '1915(b)(1) states:

10

[I]f a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma
pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount
of a filing fee. The court shall assess and, when funds exist,
collect, as a partial payment of any court fees required by law,
an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater ofB

11
12
13

(A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner's
account; or

14
15

(B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner's
account for the 6Bmonthly period immediately proceeding the
filing of the complaint or notice of appeal.

16
17
18

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not provide any authority or mechanism for the Court

19

to reduce or waive the payment of Plaintiff=s filing fee, or to suspend collection of the

20

filing fee.

21

It is clear that in amending 28 U.S.C. § 1915 with the enactment of the Prison

22

Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26, 1996)

23

(PLRA), Congress intended to provide financial disincentives for prisoners filing lawsuits

24

in forma pauperis. See Lyon v. Krol, 127 F.3d 763, 764 (8th Cir. 1997) (“Congress

25

enacted PLRA with the principal purpose of deterring frivolous prisoner litigation by

26

instituting economic costs for prisoners wishing to file civil claims. See, e.g., H.R. Conf.

27

Rep. No. 104-378, at 166-67 (1995); 141 Cong. Rec. S14626 (daily ed.) (Sept. 29, 1995)

28

(statement of Sen. Dole)”).

-3-

1

The decision to file and prosecute this case was made by Plaintiff before he filed

2

this case. Having filed this case, Plaintiff and the Court are both statutorily limited by the

3

strictures of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s “Motion to

4

Adjust, Reduce, Suspend and/or Waive Court Fees.”

5

IV.

6
7

Motion to Appoint Counsel
Because this case is closed, the Court will deny as moot the Motion to Appoint

Counsel.

8

IT IS ORDERED:

9

(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 13) is denied.

10

(2)

Plaintiff’s “Motion to Obtain Transcripts, Documents, and . . . Relevant

11
12
13

Data” (Doc. 14) is denied.
(3)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Adjust, Reduce, Suspend and/or Waive Court Fees

(Doc. 15) is denied.

14

(4)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Conformed Copies (Doc. 16) is denied.

15

(5)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery and to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 17) is

16
17

denied.
Dated this 1st day of April, 2013.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-