Rueb v. Zavaras et al

Filing 19

MINUTE ORDER denying 17 Plaintiff's Motion for An Order Ordering the Defendants to Allow Plaintiff Rueb to Make Whatever Amounts of Pleading Photocopy Sets as are Necessary to Comply with Court Requirements. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 2/11/2010. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 09-cv-02817-REB-MEH JUSTIN JOSEPH RUEB, Plaintiff, v. ARISTEDES ZAVARAS and SUSAN JONES, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on February 11, 2010. Plaintiff's Motion for An Order Ordering the Defendants to Allow Plaintiff Rueb to Make Whatever Amounts of Pleading Photocopy Sets as are Necessary to Comply with Court Requirements [filed February 8, 2010; docket #17] is denied. "A prisoner's right of access to the court does not include the right of free unlimited access to a photocopying machine, particularly when as here, there are suitable alternatives." Holt v. Werholtz, 185 F. App'x 737, 740 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing Harrell v. Keohane, 621 F.2d 1059, 1061 (10th Cir. 1980)). The suitable alternative, as in Holt and Harrell, is producing hand-written copies.

The Court notes that the Bureau of Prison's Executive Order setting the price of photocopies in the federal prison system was issued in June 2008. (Docket #17 at 1, 8.) Plaintiff initiated this action in December 2009. (See docket #3.) Thus, Plaintiff had plenty of notice as to the potential cost of filing and prosecuting a civil lawsuit. Although Plaintiff is proceeding in this case without an attorney, he bears the responsibility of prosecuting this case with due diligence. The Court must liberally construe pro se filings; however, pro se status does not excuse the obligation of any litigant to comply with the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. See Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992); see also Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994).