Duwenhoegger v. Miles
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 24 Motion for production of copies. See order for details.(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 6/28/2017. (ECW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Case No. 17‐CV‐1432 (PJS/TNL)
EDDIE MILES, Warden,
Jerry Duwenhoegger, pro se.
James B. Early and Matthew Frank, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S
OFFICE, for respondent.
The Court recently denied petitioner Jerry Duwenhoegger’s petition for habeas
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 12. Duwenhoegger filed a notice of appeal, ECF
No. 14, and was granted permission to appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 23.
He now brings a motion asking the Court to provide him with copies of documents in
the record. According to Duwenhoegger, he is in need of these materials because
defendant has seized and destroyed his copies of the documents.
Duwenhoegger is not a credible litigant. He is, for example, presently claiming
that he “was denied any & all access to the Court from Dec. 2009 to Oct. 2016 . . . .” ECF
No. 30 at 1. This is demonstrably false. Duwenhoegger filed a civil‐rights action in this
Court on September 17, 2010, and he vigorously litigated that action by filing pleadings,
briefs, and other documents on numerous occasions in late 2010, 2011, 2012, and early
2013. See Pastor Jerry J. Duwenhoegger, Sr. v. John R. King, et al., Case No. 10‐CV‐3965
(PJS/JSM). The Court is skeptical of Duwenhoegger’s allegation that defendant
destroyed all of his papers.
Even assuming that Duwenhoegger is telling the truth, an order granting leave to
proceed IFP does not automatically give a litigant the right to obtain a free copy of any
document in the record that the litigant may want. Guinn v. Hoecker, 43 F.3d 1483 (10th
Cir. 1994) (unpublished table decision); see also In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir.
1990) (IFP status “does not give the litigant a right to have documents copied and
returned to him at government expense.”); Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661, 662 (6th Cir.
1964) (per curiam) (“the statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis . . . does not
include the right to obtain copies of court orders without payment therefor”).
Nevertheless, acting in the interests of justice and in exercise of its discretion, the Court
will direct the Clerk of Court to send Duwenhoegger a copy of the Report and
Recommendation [ECF No. 7] and the order adopting the Report and Recommendation
[ECF No. 12].
The Court will not, however, produce copies of the (voluminous) remaining
materials that Duwenhoegger requests, all of which were filed by Duwenhoegger
himself. An IFP litigant is not entitled to free copies of documents that he submitted to
the Court. See Anderson v. Gillis, 236 F. App’x 738, 739 (3d Cir. 2007) (per curiam)
(although prisoners who have been granted IFP status in a habeas case may obtain
certain documents free of charge, “copies of documents generated by the petitioner and
filed by him previously in the case would not be included”); Fiveash v. Tom Green Cty.,
30 F.3d 1493 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision) (“There is no
provision in the statute which gives Fiveash the right to have his pleadings copied and
returned to him at Government expense.”); see also Douglas, 327 F.2d at 662 (rejecting
appellant’s motion for a copy of his pleading because “[h]e necessarily knows what he
alleged in his complaint, even if he did not retain a copy”). Nor is production of these
materials necessary to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, as that
court has indicated that it will rely on the electronic version of the record. ECF No. 27;
cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) (district court may authorize payment for printing the record on
appeal if the printing is required by the appellate court). If Duwenhoegger wishes to
obtain copies of these materials, he must contact the Clerk of Court and pay the
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Petitioner’s motion for the production of copies [ECF No. 24] is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Court directs the Clerk of
Court to print and mail to petitioner a copy of the Report and
Recommendation [ECF No. 7], the order adopting the Report and
Recommendation [ECF No. 12], and this order.
The motion is DENIED in all other respects.
Dated: June 28, 2017
s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge
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?