Zimmerman v. State of Nebraska

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: On or before May 23, 2013, Petitioner shall submit a completely new amended petition that is signed in accordance with Rule 11. Petitioner is warned that failure to comply with this Memorandum and Order may result in dismissal of this case without further notice. The clerk's office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline using the following text: May 23, 2013: deadline for Petitioner to submit amended petition correcting si gnature deficiency. Petitioner's Motion for Status is denied as moot. (Filing No. 10 , Part 1 of 2.); Petitioner's Motion for Copies is denied. (Filing No. 10 , Part 2 of 2.); Petitioner's Motion for Clarification of Deficiency Noti ce is granted to theextent it is consistent with this Memorandum and Order. (Filing No. 12 .); No further review of this case shall take place until Petitioner complies with this order. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CHRISTOPHER ZIMMERMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF NEBRASKA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:12CV3246

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Motion for Status, Motion for Copies,
and “Motion for Clarification of Deficiency Notice.” (Filing Nos. 10, Parts 1 and 2, and 12.)
A.

Motion for Copies

Petitioner seeks copies of the “case file” in this matter. (Filing No. 10, Part 1 of 2.)
Petitioner states in his Motion that the court previously ordered the clerk’s office to send
these copies to him. Petitioner is incorrect. On February 12, 2013, the court directed the
clerk’s office to mail to Petitioner “a copy of the docket sheet” only, not a copy of every
document filed in the case. (Filing No. 9 at CM/ECF p. 2.)
The statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis does not include the right to receive
copies of documents without payment. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; see also In re Richard, 914 F.2d
1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990), (§ 1915 “does not give a litigant a right to have documents
copied and returned to him at government expense”); 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)). If Petitioner requires
copies of court documents or electronic filings, he should contact the clerk’s office directly
to determine the proper method for requesting and paying for copies. Accordingly, the
court finds that Petitioner’s Motion for Copies (Filing No. 10, Part 2 of 2) is denied.

B.

Motion for Clarification of Deficiency Notice

Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 8) is deficient
because it is not signed as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. In light of this
deficiency, Petitioner must submit a completely new amended petition for writ of habeas
corpus that is signed in accordance with Rule 11. Petitioner is warned that failure to
comply with this Memorandum and Order may result in dismissal of this case without
further notice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

On or before May 23, 2013, Petitioner shall submit a completely new
amended petition that is signed in accordance with Rule 11. Petitioner is
warned that failure to comply with this Memorandum and Order may result
in dismissal of this case without further notice;

2.

The clerk’s office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline using
the following text: May 23, 2013: deadline for Petitioner to submit amended
petition correcting signature deficiency;

3.

Petitioner’s Motion for Status is denied as moot. (Filing No. 10, Part 1 of 2.);

4.

Petitioner’s Motion for Copies is denied. (Filing No. 10, Part 2 of 2.);

5.

Petitioner’s Motion for Clarification of Deficiency Notice is granted to the
extent it is consistent with this Memorandum and Order. (Filing No. 12.); and

6.

No further review of this case shall take place until Petitioner complies with
this order.

DATED this 24th day of April, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief 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.
2