(PC) Hammler v. Clark et al

Filing 54

ORDER DENYING 53 Plaintiff's Motion for Copy of Initial Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/15/2019. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALLEN HAMMLER,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
CLARK, et.al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00373-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR COPY OF INITIAL COMPLAINT
[ECF No. 53]

Plaintiff Allen Hammler is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a copy of the initial complaint, filed

21

October 11, 2019. Plaintiff requests that the Court direct the Warden to provide him a copy of the

22

initial complaint to determine whether he wishes to further amend the complaint. Plaintiff is advised

23

that May 17, 2019, the Court screened the complaint, found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim

24

against Defendants Gamboa, Peterson, Garza, Saucedo and Uhlik for violation of the First

25

Amendment, and granted Plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint or notify the Court of his

26

intent to proceed on the claim found to be cognizable. On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of

27

intent to proceed on the claim found to be cognizable. Therefore, on May 30, 2019, the undersigned

28

issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that this action proceed only the First
1

1

Amendment claim against Defendants Gamboa, Peterson, Garza, Saucedo and Uhlik, and all other

2

claims be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 28.) The Findings and

3

Recommendations were adopted in full on July 9, 2019, and e-service of the complaint was ordered on

4

July 10, 2019. (ECF No. 32.) On September 18, 2019, the waivers of service were returned and

5

Defendants answer is presently due on or before October 21, 2019. In light of the procedural posture

6

of this case, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the need for a copy of the initial complaint, at this time.
Furthermore, Plaintiff is advised that the Court does not ordinarily provide free copies of case

7
8

documents to parties. The Clerk of Court charges $.50 per page for copies of documents. See 28

9

U.S.C. § 1914(a). Copies of up to twenty pages may be made by the Clerk Office at this Court upon

10

written request and prepayment of the copy fees. The fact that the Court has granted leave for Plaintiff

11

to proceed in forma pauperis does not entitle him to free copies of documents from the Court. Under

12

28 U.S.C. § 2250, the Clerk is not required to furnish copies without costs to an indigent plaintiff

13

except by order of the judge.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied, without prejudice.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:

18

October 15, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2