Wattleton v. Davis

Filing 7

ORDER re Report and Recommendation 5 : Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Docket No. 2 ] is DENIED. This action is SUMMARILY DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on January 27, 2015. (CBC) (cc: Wattleton) Modified text on 1/27/2015 (ALM).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
David Earl Wattleton,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil No. 14-5003 (JNE/SER)
ORDER

Brian K. Davis, Assistant Director
Correctional Programs, Federal Bureau of
Prisons,
Defendant.
In a Report and Recommendation dated December 18, 2014, the Honorable Steven
E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed
in forma pauperis be denied and that this action be summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff objected, asserting 28 C.F.R. § 543.11(h) indicates that “it
is the Warden’s burden to prove that it is ‘clearly impractical’ to provide [Plaintiff] with
access to technology to submit [Plaintiff’s] legal documents electronically.” But section
543.11(h) does not impose such a burden, and it does not require provision of the
technology that Plaintiff seeks:
Unless clearly impractical, the Warden shall allow an inmate
preparing legal documents to use a typewriter, or, if the inmate cannot type,
to have another inmate type his documents. The Warden may allow the
inmate to hire a public stenographer to type documents outside the
institution, but the institution may not assume the expense of hiring the
public stenographer. Staff shall advise the inmate of any delay in the
typing of which they have received notice from the stenographer.
28 C.F.R. § 543.11(h).

1

Based on a de novo review of the record, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection
and accepts the recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
and to summarily dismiss this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Therefore, IT
IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Docket No. 2] is DENIED.

2.

This action is SUMMARILY DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 27, 2015
s/Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge

2