Robinson v. State of Nebraska et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiff's "Motion for Extension of Deadline" (Filing 19) is granted in part; Plaintiff's amended complaint shall be filed on or before January 16, 2023; The Clerk of the Court shall amend the pro se cas e-management deadline regarding the filing of the amended complaint as follows: January 16, 2023amended complaint due; Plaintiff's Motion for a Free Copy of All Filings on Record (Filing 17) is denied; and Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal of Judge Richard Kopf (Filing 18) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (ADB)

8:22-cv-00151-RGK-PRSE Doc # 20 Filed: 11/17/22 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID # 88

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
KIRK D. ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,

8:22CV151

vs.
STATE OF NEBRASKA; NEBRASKA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
RUSSELL VANLENGEN; KEVIN
KLIPPERT, UM; KURT WEES, Unit
Admin.; and OMAHA CORRECTION
CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC,

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Defendants.

On September 7, 2022, the court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint
that sets forth a viable claim. (Filing 11.) Thereafter, the court granted Plaintiff’s “Motion
for Extension on Continuance” (Filing 13), giving Plaintiff an additional 90 days—or until
December 15, 2022—to file an amended complaint due to restrictive law-library
procedures at his institution. (Filing 14.) Because the “library use restriction has gotten
even worse” and because “[t]here are and have been weeks the Plaintiff has had no time in
the library for various reasons,” Plaintiff has filed another Motion for Extension of
Deadline (Filing 19) requesting another 60 days to file an amended complaint. Because
Plaintiff has already been granted one generous continuance, I will grant Plaintiff’s request
for another extension in part by granting him 30 additional days to file an amended
complaint.
Plaintiff also moves for a free copy of all filings on record in this case because it
will take two weeks for “NDCS Central Office . . . to even write a check to the Court.”
(Filing 17.) “An IFP litigant is not entitled to free copies of documents that he submitted
to the Court” or to additional copies of other documents generated by the court.
Duwenhoegger v. Miles, No. 17-CV-1432, 2017 WL 2799155, at *1 (D. Minn. June 28,
2017); see In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990) (“28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) . . .
does not give the litigant a right to have documents copied and returned to him at

8:22-cv-00151-RGK-PRSE Doc # 20 Filed: 11/17/22 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID # 89

government expense.”); 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.”); Guinn v. Hoecker, 43 F.3d 1483 (10th Cir. 1994) (unpublished table decision)
(“Plaintiff’s principal error, however, is his apparent belief that an order granting leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, without the payment of the ‘fees and costs’ referenced in 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a), includes the right to have free copies of any documents in the record the
indigent party desires. It does not. . . .”); 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, 1078 (8th Cir. 1973)). If Plaintiff
requires copies of court documents, he should contact the Clerk of the Court’s office to
determine the proper method of requesting and paying for copies. Plaintiff’s Motion for a
Free Copy of All Filings on Record (Filing 17) will be denied.
Finally, Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Recusal of Judge Richard Kopf (Filing 18)
because I allegedly made an incorrect decision in one of Plaintiff’s unrelated 2019 lawsuits
in this court. Dissatisfaction with a judge’s prior legal decision on the merits of a case
constitutes grounds for appeal, not recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555
(1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality
motion. . . . Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.”); Green
v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 919 (10th Cir. 1992) (“adverse rulings against a litigant cannot
in themselves form the appropriate grounds for disqualification”); Buttercase v. Frakes,
No. 8:18-CV-131, 2019 WL 2513678, at *1 (D. Neb. June 18, 2019) (“Here, [Plaintiff’s]
accusations are premised entirely on unfavorable rulings in previous litigation, which are
neither extrajudicial, nor indicative of bias.”); 28 U.S.C. § 144 (upon showing by affidavit
that presiding judge has personal bias or prejudice against affiant or in favor of adverse
party, another judge shall be assigned to hear proceeding)1; 28 U.S.C. § 455 (grounds upon
which judge should disqualify himself does not include making prior unrelated decisions
that were adverse to party demanding recusal). Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal of
Judge Richard Kopf (Filing 18) will be denied.

1

Plaintiff has not filed an affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 144 showing that the
judge at issue has a personal bias or prejudice.
2

8:22-cv-00151-RGK-PRSE Doc # 20 Filed: 11/17/22 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID # 90

IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Extension of Deadline” (Filing 19) is granted in part;

2.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall be filed on or before January 16, 2023;

3.
The Clerk of the Court shall amend the pro se case-management deadline
regarding the filing of the amended complaint as follows: January 16, 2023—amended
complaint due;
4.
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Free Copy of All Filings on Record (Filing 17) is
denied; and
5.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal of Judge Richard Kopf (Filing 18) is denied.

DATED this 17th day of November, 2022.
BY THE COURT:

Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

3