Conley v. McEwen

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/18/13 denying 38 request for copies of court documents. Any further documents filed by petitioner with this court since the closing date will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHAWN CONLEY, Petitioner, 11 12 13 14 No. 2:11-cv-00126 LKK DAD P vs. L.S. McEWEN, Respondent. ORDER / 15 16 This petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed on January 29, 2013. On 17 March 11, 2013, petitioner filed letter directed to the Clerk of the Court concerning his request 18 for copies of two documents (Docs. No. 27 & 28) he filed with the court. The Clerk of the Court 19 informed petitioner that he would have to pay $0.50 per page for the requested copies. Petitioner 20 is advised that in forma pauperis status does not include an entitlement to receive free copies of 21 documents filed with the court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2250, the Clerk is not required to furnish 22 copies without cost to an indigent petitioner except by order of the judge. It is petitioner’s 23 responsibility to maintain copies of documents he has filed with the court. Also, the court notes 24 that although petitioner apparently did not have the copies of the documents he now seeks, 25 petitioner was able to file his appeal, and the U.S. Court of Appeals has access to the entire 26 record in this action. 1 Accordingly, petitioner’s March 11, 2013 request for copies of court documents 1 2 (Doc. No. 38) is denied and any further documents filed by petitioner with this court since the 3 closing date will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings. 4 DATED: March 18, 2013. 5 6 7 DAD:4 conl126.158 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?