Kimpel v. Marquez et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying 66 Motion for Complete Copies of all Docket Entries: the Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff a copy of the current docket sheet. If Plaintiff can identify the specific docket entries he needs, and explain why he needs them, the Court will reconsider his request. Signed by Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick on 4/30/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JAY G KIMPEL,

Civil No.

11
12
13
14
15
16

11-cv-1084-JLS (DHB)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR COMPLETE COPIES
OF ALL DOCKET ENTRIES

I MARQUEZ, CDC Correctional Officer; D.
MARTINEZ, RJ Donovan State Prison; A
BUENROSTRO, RJ Donovan State Prison;
RICO, Correctional Officer, RJ Donovan State
Prison; and RINK, Lieutenant,

[ECF No. 66]

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Jay Kimpel is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on a civil rights
action filed under 28 U.S.C. §1983. (ECF No. 1.) On April 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting
the Court send him a complete copy of every entry on the docket because he either does not have copies
or his copies were lost when he was transferred between correctional facilities. (ECF No. 66.) Although
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, he is not entitled to free photocopies of every
docket entry. The Ninth Circuit and other Courts of Appeal have traditionally held that 28 U.S.C. §
1915 provides no statutory authority for federal courts to authorize waiver of witness fees or to front
other costs of litigation on behalf of an in forma pauperis litigant. Section 1915 only authorizes the
court to permit commencement of suit without prepayment of fees and costs upon a showing of
indigency. Hadsell v. Comm’r Internal Revenue Service, 107 F.3d 750, 752 (9th Cir. 1997); Dixon v.
Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993); Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per

-1-

11cv1084-JLS (DHB)

1

curiam). Further, prisoners have no constitutional right to free photocopy services. Sands v. Lewis, 886

2

F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). See Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166, 183 (3d Cir.1997)

3

("[T]here is no First Amendment right to subsidized [legal] mail or photocopying.").

4
5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Complete Copies of All Docket Entries
is DENIED.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff a copy of the current docket

7

sheet. If Plaintiff can identify the specific docket entries he needs, and explain why he needs them, the

8

Court will reconsider his request.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 30, 2012

11
12

DAVID H. BARTICK
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

11cv1084-JLS (DHB)