Reising v. Lewien

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Petitioner's Motion for Copies (Filing No. 14 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
GREGORY C. REISING,
Petitioner,

8:17CV321

vs.
BARB LEWIEN, Chief Executive
Officer, Warden;

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Respondent.
This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Motion for Copies. (Filing
No. 14.) Petitioner requests “a free copy of all documents filed electronically.”
(Id. at CM/ECF p.1.) Petitioner previously filed a similar motion asking for copies
of his habeas petition filed herein as well as documents related to his state court
appeals. (Filing No. 8.) The court denied that motion and, likewise, will deny
Petitioner’s present motion for copies for the reasons that follow.
This court’s local rules provide, in relevant part:
(f) Official Record. The clerk does not maintain a paper court file in
any case unless required by law or local rule. When a document is
filed electronically, the official record is the electronic recording of
the document as stored by the court, and the filing party is bound by
the document as filed.
(1) Documents Filed Nonelectronically. The official record
also includes documents filed nonelectronically under local
rule.
(2) Original Documents Scanned and Discarded. The clerk
scans and discards original documents brought to the clerk for
filing unless the document’s size or nature requires that it be
kept in a paper format. An attorney who wishes to have an

original document returned after the clerk scans and uploads it
to the System may, before submitting the document to the clerk,
ask the assigned judge for written authorization for the
document’s return. Authorization is granted on a case-by-case
basis. The court does not allow blanket authorizations for the
return of all original documents filed by an attorney or office.
(3) Copies of Filings. A party who requests a copy of a paper
document submitted for filing must, at the time of filing, supply
the clerk’s office with the copy and, if the return is to be made
by mail, a self-addressed, stamped envelope.
NECivR 5.1(f).
Here, Petitioner did not ask the undersigned judge for the return of his
original documents prior to submitting them to the clerk’s office for filing. In
addition, Petitioner did not provide a self-addressed, stamped envelope for the
return of his original documents. In addition, Petitioner did not submit payment
for the cost of making copies, and Petitioner does not have the right to receive
copies of documents without payment, even if the court granted him leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (providing that a court may
authorize the commencement of a suit “without prepayment of fees or security
therefor”) (emphasis added). If Petitioner requires copies of court documents, he
should contact this court’s clerk’s office to determine the proper method for
requesting and paying for copies. See NEGenR 1.3(a)(1)(A)(iii) (“Paper and
certified copies of electronically filed documents may be purchased from the clerk
for a fee collected under 28 U.S.C. § 1914.”)
To the extent that Petitioner seeks documents related to his underlying state
criminal proceeding that is the subject of the present habeas petition, the court
takes this opportunity to inform Petitioner that the Respondent is required to file
any state court records necessary to support Respondent’s motion for summary
judgment or, if Respondent elects to file an answer, all state court records that are
2

relevant to the cognizable claims in the petition. See, e.g., Rule 5(c)-(d) of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
Respondent is also required to provide Petitioner with a copy of the specific pages
of the record cited in Respondent’s motion or answer and brief. (See Filing No. 6
at CM/ECF pp.2–4.) Here, Respondent has until January 18, 2018, to file either a
motion for summary judgment or the relevant state court records in support of an
answer. Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Petitioner’s Motion for Copies (Filing
No. 14) is denied.
Dated this 10th day of January, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

3