Novitskiy v. Warden of Aurora I.C.E. Processing Center et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 27 "Motion for Production of the Specific Document, Which must Be Authenticated by the Clerk of the Court at No Cost to Petitioner" by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 2/23/16.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00965-MSK
SERGEY GENAD=YEVICH NOVITSKIY,
Applicant,
v.
MATT HOLM, Warden of I.C.E. Processing Center,
CARL ZABAT, and
LYNN DOBLE-SALICRUP,
Respondents.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
The matter before the Court is the “Motion for Production of the Specific Document,
Which must Be Authenticated by the Clerk of the Court at No Cost to Petitioner,” (Docket No.
27), filed by Applicant, Sergey Novitskiy, on February 16, 2016. In the Motion, Mr. Novitskiy
requests that the Court provide him with a free copy of the Declaration of Mark Cordova (Docket
No. 8-1) to assist him in prosecuting his civil rights suit against the United States in Case No. 15cv-01437-PAB-MEH. Applicant states that the document will not be admissible in evidence if it
is not properly authenticated by the Court, and he lacks the financial resources to pay any courtimposed copying and certification costs.
Mr. Novitskiy paid the $5.00 filing fee in this action. However, he has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, in Civil Action No. 15-cv01437-PAB-MEH. Applicant should have filed his Motion for Production in the civil rights
action.

1

Mr. Novitskiy is reminded that in forma pauperis status does not automatically entitle
him to free copies of documents filed in a court action. See Guinn v. Heckler, No. 94-1257,
1994 WL 702684 (10th Cir. Dec. 15, 1994) (unpublished) (28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not include
right to free copy of any document in record; court may constitutionally require indigent plaintiff
to demonstrate need for free copy). See also In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir.1990)
(28 U.S.C. § 1915 “does not give the [prisoner] litigant a right to have documents copied and
returned to him at government expense”); Collins v. Goord, 438 F.Supp.2d 399, 416
(S.D.N.Y.2006) (“inmate[s] ha[ve] no constitutional right to free [photo]copies”); Williams v.
Minnesota Dep’t of Corrections, No. CIVA.02–4200(JRT/RLE), 2003 WL 21744244 (D. Minn.
July 22, 2003) (same, citing Guinn); Rayes v. Houson, No. No. 4:14CV3177, 2014 WL 6980254,
at *4 (D. Neb. Dec. 9. 2014) (same, citing Guinn).
In the Motion, Mr. Novitskiy does not explain why the Cordova Declaration is necessary
to his prosecution of his civil claims against the United States in 15-cv-01437-PAB-MEH and
has therefore failed to demonstrate a need to obtain the document at the government’s expense.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the “Motion for Production of the Specific Document, Which must Be
Authenticated by the Clerk of the Court at No Cost to Petitioner,” (Docket No. 27), filed by
Applicant, Sergey Novitskiy, on February 16, 2016, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is
FURTHER ORDERED any further motions filed by Mr. Novitskiy that pertain to his
separate lawsuit in Civil Action No. 15-cv-01437-PAB-MEH must be filed in that action. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Novitskiy may obtain a copy of the requested document
by contacting the Clerk of the Court and paying the published fee(s). See www.uscourts.gov.

2

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger
United States District Court

3