Prall v. Hartford Prosecutors et al

Filing 22

PRISCS - RULING AND ORDER. Granting 20 to the extent that the clerk shall change plaintiff's address, denying 20 Motion for Copy(s); denying 20 Motion MOTION for free copy of all documents filed in case; MOTION to enforce the subpoenas. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 3/30/10. (Corriette, M.)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT TORMU E. PRALL, Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD PROSECUTORS, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : PRISONER CASE NO. 3:09-cv-1047(JBA) RULING AND ORDER Plaintiff has submitted a letter to the court in which he asks for various forms of relief. letter as a motion. First, plaintiff asks the court to note his change of address. The address is noted and the Clerk is directed to The court has docketed the update plaintiff's address on court records. Second, plaintiff asks the court to enforce the subpoenas he asked the clerk to issue for Judge Taylor and Public Defenders Ahern and Wildfeuer. The docket does not indicate that plaintiff ever submitted completed subpoena forms to the court to be issued. Accordingly, plaintiff's request is denied. Third, plaintiff seeks a free copy of all documents filed in this case. photocopies, Plaintiff has no constitutional right to free see, e.g., Collins v. Goord, 438 F. Supp. 2d 399, 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), and in forma pauperis status does not entitle him to free copies of documents in the court's file. See, e.g., Guinn v. Hoecker, 43 F.3d 1483 (10th Cir. 1994) (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); Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661, 662 (6th Cir. 1964) ( 28 U.S.C. 1915 does not include the right to receive copies of court orders without payment). Accordingly, plaintiff's request is denied. The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet along with this order. Plaintiff may contact the Clerk to If plaintiff cannot determine the cost of the copies he wants. pay the required copy fee, he may file a motion explaining his need for the particular documents and attach evidence demonstrating his lack of funds. Finally, plaintiff asks the court to inform defendants' counsel of his change of address. Plaintiff, not the court, bears responsibility for keeping opposing counsel informed of his current address. In addition, plaintiff must serve a copy of any document he files or submits to the court on opposing counsel. Although the court accepted this ex parte motion, plaintiff is advised that the court will not do so in the future. Opposing counsel is Assistant Attorney General Robert B. Fiske III, 110 Sherman St., Hartford, CT 06105. In conclusion, plaintiff's motion [Doc. #20] is GRANTED to the extent that the Clerk shall change plaintiff's address to the address listed in this motion and send plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet along with this order. Plaintiff's request for 2 enforcement of subpoenas is DENIED as the court record does not indicated that any subpoenas were issued. Plaintiff's request for a free copy of all documents filed in this case is DENIED. Upon receipt of the docket sheet, plaintiff may contact the Clerk to ascertain the number of pages and the copy cost for any documents he needs. If he cannot afford the copy charge, he shall file a motion explaining his need for that particular document and attach to the motion evidence of his inability to pay. Plaintiff also is advised that he must send a copy of any letter or motion he files to opposing counsel at the address provided above. Failure to certify that a motion was served on opposing counsel will result in the motion being returned to plaintiff. It is so ordered. /s/ Janet Bond Arterton United States District Judge Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 30th day of March 2010. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?