Ricks v. Levine, et al.

Filing 20

ORDER RE: Motion at Docket 19 signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 2/9/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SCOTT K. RICKS,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01150-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: MOTION
AT DOCKET 19

vs.
G. LEVINE, et al.,
Defendants.

At Docket 19 Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks, a State prisoner appearing pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed a motion seeking: (1) copies of the pleadings and documents filed with this
Court; and (2) a 90-day extension within which to file an amended complaint.
It appears from the Motion that since his transfer to Atascadero State Hospital on
or about October 23, 2015, Plaintiff has been denied access to his legal papers. As a
result Plaintiff is unable to prepare and file an amended complaint. Unfortunately, Plaintiff
has no constitutional right to have the court provide him free copies of documents in the
court’s file.1 The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent is proper only when

1

Cf. Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir.1990) (Court noted that
“numerous courts have rejected any constitutional right to free and unlimited photocopying”
by prisoners),
ORDER RE: MOTION AT DOCKET 19
Ricks v. Levine, 1:15-cv-01150-RRB – 1

authorized by Congress.2 Consequently, in forma pauperis status does not entitle Plaintiff
to free copies in the court file.3
If Plaintiff wishes to have copies of these documents provided to him at his expense,
he may contact the Clerk of the Court to determine what the photocopying-related costs
would be under the District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule.
Accordingly, for good cause shown Plaintiff is granted through and including Friday,
June 3, 2016, within which to file his Amended Complaint consistent with the Court’s prior
Dismissal Order.4 In all other respects, the Motion at Docket 19 is DENIED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of February, 2016.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211–12 (9th Cir. 1989).

3

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; see e.g., In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir.1990)
(Court concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the in forma pauperis statute, “does not give the
[prisoner] litigant a right to have documents copies and returned to him at government
expense”).
4

Docket 13.

ORDER RE: MOTION AT DOCKET 19
Ricks v. Levine, 1:15-cv-01150-RRB – 2