-DLP Davis et al v. Gunter et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 40 Motion for Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(EJL)

-PRSE Davis et al v. Gunter et al

Doc. 42

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA STAN DAVIS, and RICHARD RAYES, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) FRANK O. GUNTER, Director of the ) Department of Correctional Services, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) 4:88CV462

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Richard Rayes' ("Rayes") Motion for Reimbursement. (Filing No. 40.) In his motion, Rayes requests that the court provide him "compensation for expenditures" he has incurred in this matter because he has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id.) The statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis does not include the right to receive funds from the court to pay for copies or other costs relating to a pro se litigant's case. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; see also Haymes v. Smith, 73 F.R.D. 572, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 1976) ("The generally recognized rule is that a court may not authorize the commitment of federal funds to underwrite the necessary expenditures of an indigent civil litigant's action.") (citing Tyler v. Lark, 472 F.2d 1077 (8th Cir. 1973), other citations omitted). Thus, despite Rayes' in forma pauperis status, the court cannot pay his litigation expenses and the motion is denied.

Dockets.Justia.com

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff Richard Rayes' Motion for Reimbursement (filing no. 40) is denied. Dated March 28, 2011. BY THE COURT s/ Warren K. Urbom United States Senior District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court. 2