Martin v. Harrinston et al

Filing 30

ORDER Denying 28 Motion for Transcripts at Government Expense. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 12/16/2015. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LANCE R. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No.: 14CV2914 BEN (PCL)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TRANSCRIPTS AT GOVERNMENT
EXPENSE

v.
T. HARRINSTON, et al.,

[Docket No. 28]

Defendants.

15
16
17

Lance R. Martin, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a “Motion for

18

Transcripts at Government Expense.” (Docket No. 28.) However, Plaintiff is not

19

seeking transcripts. He is requesting “a conformed copy of [his] Second Amended

20

Complaint . . . with exhibits filed on court record dated May 20, 2015.”1 (Id.)
Plaintiff was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

21
22

§ 1915(a). However, his initial complaint, First Amended Complaint, and SAC were

23

each dismissed for failing to state a claim. (Docket Nos. 3, 17, 22.) The SAC was

24

dismissed without leave to amend based on futility and Plaintiff filed an appeal. (Docket

25
26
27

1

Plaintiff’s SAC, including exhibits, is approximately 130 pages.
1
14CV2914 BEN (PCL)

1

Nos. 22, 24.) Plaintiff indicates that he needs a copy of the SAC for purposes of quoting

2

from it in his appellate brief. However, it is not clear why Plaintiff does not have a copy

3

of his own pleading or why the Court should provide a copy at government expense.

4

Generally, a plaintiff’s IFP status does not authorize the court to “to commit

5

federal monies for payment of the necessary expenses in a civil suit brought by an

6

indigent litigant.” Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 158-59 (3d Cir. 1993); see also United

7

States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976) (discussing free transcripts and noting the

8

established rule that “expenditure of public funds is proper only when authorized by

9

Congress”); Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding 28 U.S.C. §

10

1915 does not waive payment of indigent’s witness fees). It appears that Plaintiff is

11

simply attempting to obtain a free copy of his own document without any explanation

12

why he should not pay for the copy or why he did not retain a copy of his own pleading.

13

However, Plaintiff is not entitled to “have documents copied and returned to him at

14

government expense.” In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990).

15

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: December 16, 2015

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
14CV2914 BEN (PCL)