Alvarez v. Ko et al

Filing 113

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Ex-Parte Motion for Record of Proceedings on File. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 9/13/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(A copy of this Order and a copy of ECF No. 91 has been mailed to the Plaintiff)(anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 3:16-cv-1302-CAB-NLS

VICENTE ARRAIGA ALVAREZ,

12
13

v.

14
15

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
EX-PARTE MOTION FOR
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ON
FILE
[ECF No. 112]

DR. S. KO, M.D., et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
Before the Court is Plaintiff Vincente Arraiga Alvarez’s (“Plaintiff”) motion

18
19

for record of proceedings on file. (ECF No. 112.) Plaintiff requests that this Court

20

order the Clerk to provide Plaintiff with a copy of his response in opposition to

21

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment: ECF No. 91, which totals 189 pages.1

22

(ECF No. 112 at 1-2.) Plaintiff asserts that this particular filing is necessary to

23

prepare an adequate appeal. (Id. at 4.) In support of his motion, Plaintiff cites to

24

case law addressing the provision of transcripts for appeals from criminal

25

convictions.2 Id.

26
1

27
28

Plaintiff requests the exhibits attached to his opposition, which are included in the
filing. (See ECF No. 91 at 34-186; ECF No. 112 at 2.)
2
March v. Municipal Court for S.F. Judicial Dist., 7 Cal. 3d 422, 427 (1972)
1

1

The Court notes that it is up to the Plaintiff to keep and maintain his records.

2

Nonetheless, under the circumstances and because the Plaintiff asks for a single—

3

albeit lengthy—document, the Court finds it appropriate to provide Plaintiff with a

4

copy. Plaintiff is cautioned that there is no right to free photocopying for indigent

5

persons and no similar requests will be granted in the future. See Waldron-Ramsey

6

v. Manning, 996 F.2d 1230 (9th Cir. 1993) (rejecting “any constitutional right to

7

unlimited free photocopying.”).

8
9

The Clerk is DIRECTED to print a copy of ECF No. 91, and enclose it with
this Order. Due to the length of the document, double-sided printing is both

10

acceptable and preferred to conserve court resources.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 13, 2018

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(When “a transcript was essential to [an indigent criminal defendant’s] appeal, it
had to be provided at state expense.”); Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227
(1971) (stating “[t]he state must provide an indigent [criminal] defendant with a
transcript of prior proceedings when that transcript is needed for an effective
defense or appeal.”); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 19-20 (1956) (holding that “to
deny adequate review to the poor”—referring to denying free transcripts to indigent
criminal defendants appealing their convictions—violates the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.).
2