Wichelman v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/7/2011 ORDERING 7 Motion for Extension of time to provide service documents to US Marshal is GRANTED; as provided in 4 Order, plaintiff shall supply USM, within 14 days from date of this ord er, all information needed to effectuate service of process, and shall, 14 days thereafter, file a statement with the court that said documents have been submitted to the USM; 7 Reqest for copies of Plantiff's service documents is DENIED. (Waggoner, D)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

KARL WICHELMAN,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. CIV S-11-0915 JAM EFB PS

vs.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO;
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; SACRAMENTO
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE; STARR McKERSIE; STACY
WAGGONER; JOHN OTTER,

16
Defendants.
17

ORDER
/

18

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the

19

undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On May 5, 2011,

20

the undersigned granted plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, directed the

21

Clerk of the Court to issue process and provide plaintiff with the necessary documents for

22

service, and directed plaintiff to supply the United States Marshal within fourteen days all

23

information and documents needed to effect service of process. Dckt. No. 4.

24

On May 27, 2011, plaintiff filed a request for a fourteen day extension of time to provide

25

the service documents to the United States Marshal. Dckt. No. 7. Plaintiff contends that he did

26

not receive this court’s May 5, 2011 order until May 22, 2011. Id. at 3. Accordingly, plaintiff’s
1

1

request will be granted and plaintiff will be given an extension of time to provide the necessary

2

service documents to the United States Marshal.

3

Plaintiff also requests that the court provide plaintiff with copies of the documents that

4

plaintiff needs to send to the United States Marshal. However, “the expenditure of public funds

5

[on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress . . . .” Tedder v.

6

Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317,

7

321 (1976)). The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds

8

for investigators, witnesses, or copies of court documents. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; In re Richard,

9

914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990) (noting that the in forma pauperis statute “does not give the

10

litigant a right to have documents copied and returned to him at government expense”).

11

Therefore, plaintiff’s request will be denied.

12

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

13

1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to provide service documents to the United

14

States Marshal, Dckt. No. 7, is granted.

15

2. As provided in the May 5, 2011 order, plaintiff shall supply the United States

16

Marshal, within 14 days from the date this order is filed, all information needed by the Marshal

17

to effect service of process, and shall, within 14 days thereafter, file a statement with the court

18

that said documents have been submitted to the United States Marshal.

19
20

3. Plaintiff’s request for copies of his service documents, Dckt. No. 7, is denied.
DATED: June 7, 2011.

21
22
23
24
25
26
2