Faircloth v. Schwartz, et al

Filing 91

ORDER denying 66 Petition for Court Order to Compel Colorado Dept. of Corrections Legal Services Dept. and Crowley Correctional Facility to Not Impede Access to Colorado Court Rule Compliance Mandates. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 8/26/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02764-REB-KLM
JAMES FAIRCLOTH,
Plaintiff,
v.
CELIA SCHWARTZ, Legal Assistant for BVCF, in her official and individual capacities,
GERRY BLAND, Hearings Officer for BVMC/BVCF, in his official and individual capacities,
and
MURRAY, Food Services Sargent (sic) BVMC/BVCF, in her official and individual
capacities,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Petition for Court Order to Compel
Colorado Dept. of Corrections Legal Services Dept. and Crowley Correctional Facility
to Not Impede Access to Colorado Court Rule Compliance Mandates [Docket No. 66;
Filed April 29, 2013] (the “Motion”). On August 15, 2013, Defendants timely filed a
Response [#87] by Order of the Court [#84].
Plaintiff, who proceeds in this matter as a pro se litigant, is incarcerated at Crowley
County Correctional Facility. By a memorandum dated April 15, 2013, Plaintiff was
informed by the facility’s Office of Legal Services:
Pursuant to Administrative Regulation (AR) 750-01, the Legal Access
Program has restricted your photocopy privileges. You have accumulated
more than $500.00 of legal photocopy debt in the last three years.

-1-

You are currently $518.50 in arrears for legal photocopy debt.
The Legal Access Program will provide you with only one (1) copy of original
pleadings filed with the court in the area of habeas corpus, post conviction
and conditions of confinement. This will give you one Original to file with the
Court and one copy for your records. Copies for other types of motions will
not be provided, regardless of need, until your offender account is less than
$500.00 for photocopy debt.
Motion [#66] at 3. Plaintiff brings the present Motion to obtain a Court Order directed at the
Colorado Department of Corrections Legal Services Department to prevent its restriction
of Plaintiff’s photocopy privileges. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff is not entitled to free aid from Defendants. First, “[o]ther than habeas corpus
or civil rights actions regarding current confinement, a state has no affirmative constitutional
obligation to assist inmates in general civil matters.” Carper v. DeLand, 54 F.3d 613, 61617 (10th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff’s present lawsuit does not involve either a habeas corpus
proceeding or a civil rights action regarding current confinement. See Am. Compl. [#85].
Second, Plaintiff’s request mirrors the incarcerated plaintiff’s request in Harrell v.
Keohane, 621 F.2d 1059, 1061 (10th Cir. 1980). In Harrell, the plaintiff argued that he was
“entitled not only to unrestricted access to the courts but also to completely free access as
well.” Id. The plaintiff contended that “the denial of his request for free photocopying
denied him access” to the court. Id. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that
“[r]easonable regulations are necessary to balance the legitimate interests of inmate
litigants with budgetary considerations and to prevent abuse. A prisoner’s right of access
to the court does not include the right of free unlimited access to a photocopying machine
. . . .” Id.

-2-

Third, an incarcerated plaintiff must also live within his budgetary constraints.
Shabazz v. Parsons, 127 F.3d 1246, 1248-49 (10th Cir. 1997).
Requiring prisoners to make economic decisions about filing lawsuits does
not deny access to the courts; it merely places the indigent prisoner in a
position similar to that faced by those whose basic costs of living are not paid
by the state. Those living outside of prisons cannot file a lawsuit every time
they suffer a real or imagined slight. Instead, they must weigh the
importance of redress before resorting to the legal system. If a prisoner
determines that his funds are better spent on other items rather than filing a
civil rights suit, “he has demonstrated an implied evaluation of that suit” that
the courts should be entitled to honor.
Id. (quoting Roller v. Gunn, 107 F.3d 227, 233 (4th Cir. 1997)).
Although there are extraordinary circumstances where fundamental due process
concerns may demand that a plaintiff be provided with additional resources, see Carper v.
DeLand, 54 F.3d at 616-17, this Plaintiff’s particular circumstances do not. Plaintiff chose
to bring this civil action voluntarily knowing the limitations he would face due to his financial
means, lack of legal training, and incarcerated status. To the extent that Plaintiff feels that
he cannot bear the responsibility at this time, he may voluntarily dismiss his case without
prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). However, while the case is pending, it remains
Plaintiff’s legal obligation to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local
Rules in this District, and all orders of this Court. See Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917
(10th Cir. 1992). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#66] is DENIED.
Dated: August 26, 2013

-3-