Holladay v. Bakewell

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider (filing no. 18 ), is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LARRY HOLLADAY,
Petitioner,
v.
DENNIS BAKEWELL, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:11CV3103

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider. (Filing No. 18.) In his Motion,
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court’s December 5, 2011, Memorandum and Order, which denied
Petitioner’s Motion for Copies. (Id.) In that Memorandum and Order, the court informed Petitioner that he does
not have the right to receive copies of documents without payment, even if the court granted him leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. (Filing No. 17.) See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915; 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).
If Petitioner requires copies of court documents, he should contact the Clerk of the court to determine
the proper method of requesting and paying for copies. Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider (filing no. 18), is denied.
DATED this 22nd day of December, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States 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.