Heilman v. Cherniss et al

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/6/12 DENYING 27 Motion for the return of property. (Dillon, 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
vs.

12
13

No. CIV S-11-0042 JAM EFB P

C. CHERNIS, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

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

16
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.
Plaintiff does not indicate which court-imposed deadline, if any, requires his immediate

23
24

access to his legal property. Thus, his claimed inability to proceed in this action lacks merit and

25

his request for an order directing the return of his property appears to be unnecessary at this time.

26

////
1

1

Nor will the Court provide him with copies of “all records” in this case. Although plaintiff

2

proceeds in forma pauperis, see Dckt. No. 7, the expenditure of public funds on behalf of an

3

indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th

4

Cir. 1989). The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for

5

copies of court documents. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Thus, if plaintiff requires copies of

6

documents filed with the court, he must pay for them. Given that there are now 30 docket entries

7

in this action, plaintiff must also be more specific as to which filings, or at least which types of

8

filings, he seeks copies.

9

Should any delay in the return of plaintiff’s legal property interfere with his ability to

10

meet a court-imposed deadline, he may then request that the court grant him an extension of

11

time, explaining why he has been unable to meet the deadline in the time provided. If plaintiff

12

seeks additional time on the grounds he did not have adequate access to his property, he must

13

indicate why he is unable to meet the deadline without that property, what specific requests he

14

has made for access to that property, and how prison officials have responded to those requests.

15

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

16

return of his property (Dckt. No. 27) is denied.

17

DATED: April 6, 2012.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2