Heilman v. Vokufka et al

Filing 95

ORDER denying 92 Motion for the return of his property signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 04/06/12. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN,
Plaintiff,

11
12

No. CIV S-08-2788 KJM EFB P

vs.

13

MICHAEL VOJKUFKA,

14

Defendant.

15
16

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

17

U.S.C. § 1983. In a motion filed March 12, 2012, he states he was transferred to R.J. Donovan

18

Correctional Facility in retaliation for engaging in constitutionally protected conduct, and that

19

officials at California Medical Facility confiscated his legal property. Plaintiff contends he

20

cannot proceed in this action without the return of his property. He seeks an order directing non-

21

parties to return all of his legal property, or alternatively, for the court to provide him with copies

22

of all records in this case. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s motion is denied.

23

Plaintiff is currently under no court-imposed deadline that requires access to his legal

24

property. Thus, his claimed inability to proceed in this action lacks merit and his request for an

25

order directing the return of his property appears to be unnecessary at this time. Nor will the

26

Court provide him with copies of “all records” in this case. Twice now, the Clerk of the Court
1

1

has informed plaintiff that copies can be provided to him at a cost of $0.50 a page. Dckt. Nos.

2

16, 87. Although plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, see Dckt. No. 7, the expenditure of

3

public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress.

4

Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize

5

the expenditure of public funds for copies of court documents. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Thus, if

6

plaintiff requires copies of documents filed with the court, he must pay for them. Given that

7

there are over 90 docket entries in this action, plaintiff must also be more specific as to which

8

filings, or at least which types of filings, he seeks copies.

9

In due course, the court may direct plaintiff to file a pretrial statement. Should any delay

10

in the return of his legal property interfere with his ability to timely prepare a pretrial statement,

11

plaintiff may then request that the court grant him an extension of time to file a pretrial

12

statement, explaining why he has been unable to complete his pretrial statement in the time

13

allowed. If plaintiff seeks additional time on the grounds he did not have adequate access to his

14

property, he must indicate why he is unable to complete the pretrial statement without that

15

property, what specific requests he has made for access to that property, and how prison officials

16

have responded to those requests.

17

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s March 12, 2012 motion for the

18

return of his property (Dckt. No. 92) is denied.

19

DATED: April 6, 2012.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2