Kindred v. Allenby et al

Filing 85

ORDER denying 62 Motion for waiver of fees for legal copies and cost of postage signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/30/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RICHARD S. KINDRED,
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

CLIFF ALLENBY, et al.,

Case No. 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WAIVER
OF FEES FOR LEGAL COPIES AND COST
OF POSTAGE
(ECF NO. 62)

Defendants.

14
15
16
17

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against

19

Defendants Bigot and Bell on Plaintiff’s First Amendment free exercise claim.

20

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s January 5, 2018 “Motion for Waiver of Fees for Legal

21

Copies and Cost of Postage to Serve Defendants’ Counsel.” (ECF No. 62.) He

22

complains that his institution requires him to pay for copying of documents and postage

23

incurred to effectuate service of documents on defense counsel. He attaches documents

24

relating to difficulties he has had with the institutional mail system over the past two

25

years.

26

As an initial matter, Plaintiff is reminded that he need not copy documents and

27

serve them on defense counsel if they are filed with the Court. As Plaintiff has been

28

1

advised (ECF No. 3), once an attorney for a defendant appears in the action, that

2

attorney's office will receive notice of all filings through the Court's electronic filing

3

system (ECM/ECF). Plaintiff need not serve documents on counsel for Defendants; the

4

date of the electronic Notice from ECM/ECF is the date of service. Thus, Plaintiff is only

5

required to serve documents on defense counsel if those documents will not be filed with

6

the Court, i.e., discovery documents.

7

Second, Plaintiff’s claims appear to rely primarily on institutional regulations or

8

policies. The Court has no power in this action to enforce those policies. This is not a

9

case regarding denial of Plaintiff’s access to courts or interference with incoming or

10

outgoing legal mail. If Plaintiff believes the institution’s charges for copying and postage

11

have interfered with his First Amendment rights, he may bring those allegations in a

12

separate action.

13

Finally, although Plaintiff has been granted in forma pauperis status in this action,

14

that status does not vest the Court authority to require his institution to waive any costs

15

and fees, nor does the Court have authority to pay those fees on Plaintiff’s behalf. “[T]he

16

expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when

17

authorized by Congress. . . .” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989)

18

(quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976)). The in forma pauperis

19

statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for copying and postage. See

20

28 U.S.C. § 1915.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 30, 2018

/s/

24

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2