Simmons v. Hedgpeth

Filing 227

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 226 Motion for Copies, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/15/17. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER I. SIMMONS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 GRISSOM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:07-cv-01058-DAD-SAB (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COPIES [ECF No. 226] Plaintiff Christopher I. Simmons is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On May 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request for copies, along with a notice of change of address. 20 Plaintiff is advised that the Court does not ordinarily provide free copies of case documents to 21 parties. The Clerk of Court charges $.50 per page for copies of documents. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 22 Copies of up to twenty pages may be made by the Clerk Office at this Court upon written request and 23 prepayment of the copy fees. 24 The fact that the Court has granted leave for Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis does not 25 entitle him to free copies of documents from the Court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2250, the Clerk is not 26 required to furnish copies without costs to an indigent plaintiff except by order of the judge. Here, 27 Plaintiff does not explain which specific filings he is requesting, or the reason why he needs them. The 28 docket in this matter reflects that Plaintiff requested two extensions of time to respond to the Court’s 1 1 February 15, 2017, order to show cause, and Plaintiff filed his response on May 24, 2017. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for copies of filings in this case, filed May 24, 2017 (ECF No. 2 3 226), is DENIED. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: 8 June 15, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?