Santos v. Allen et al

Filing 85

ORDER that 70 Motion for Order to Extend Prison Copy Work Limits is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/2/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
RONALD R. SANTOS,

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for order to extend prison copy work limits.

17

Docket No. 70. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants’ response, and Plaintiff’s

18

reply. Docket Nos. 70, 79, 83. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants in part and denies

19

in part Plaintiff’s motion for order to extend prison copy work limits.

20

I. Background

11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
ISIDRO BACA, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:11-cv-01251-KJD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 70)

21

Plaintiff, an inmate in solitary confinement, is proceeding in this action pro se, but not in

22

forma pauperis. On February 13, 2012, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1915(a), and allowed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Docket No. 7. Plaintiff filed an

24

amended complaint on May 14, 2012. Docket No. 11. The Court screened Plaintiff’s Amended

25

Complaint and stayed the action for ninety days to allow the parties an opportunity to settle the

26

dispute. Docket No. 15.

27

The parties participated in an inmate early mediation conference, but no settlement was

28

reached. Docket No. 20. On May 24, 2013, the Court lifted the stay. Docket No. 22. On October

1

29, 2013, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint. Docket No. 36. Defendants filed their

2

Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on October 2, 2014, and the Court entered a

3

scheduling order the following day. Docket Nos. 63, 64. Pursuant to that scheduling order,

4

discovery in this action shall be completed on or before January 1, 2015. Docket No. 64, at 1.

5

II. Analysis

6

Plaintiff asks the Court to order the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) to increase

7

his prison photocopy budget. Docket No. 70. In response, Defendants argue that Plaintiff should

8

create an itemization of the copies he has already made and what copies he believes are necessary

9

to prosecute this action. Docket No. 79, at 2. In reply, Plaintiff states that, because he does not

10

know what Defendants may present in discovery, he cannot submit an itemized copy work budget.

11

Docket No. 83, at 2. Plaintiff proposes that the Court increase his copy work budget by $75. Id.

12

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to free photocopying. Johnson v. Moore, 948

13

F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir.1989)

14

(“numerous courts have rejected any constitutional right to free and unlimited photocopying”)).

15

Pursuant to NDOC administrative regulation 722.01(7)(D), inmates “can only accrue a maximum

16

of $100 debt for copy work expenses for all cases, not per case.”1 The Ninth Circuit has concluded

17

that “an inmate has a right to photocopying . . . when, and only when, necessary to guarantee him

18

meaningful access to the courts.” Hiser v. Franklin, 94 F.3d 1287, 1294 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1996). In this

19

District, a court can order a prison to provide limited photocopying “when it is necessary for an

20

inmate to provide copies to the court and other parties.” Allen v. Clark Cnty. Det. Ctr., 2011 WL

21

886343, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 11, 2011) (finding that the plaintiff had demonstrated a need to increase

22

the copy work limit when he provided a copy of his inmate account statement showing a negative

23

balance of $199 and the case was pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit).

24

Here, Plaintiff has shown the need for additional photocopying. Plaintiff has provided his

25

NDOC Daily Transaction Summary indicating he has almost reached his $100 debt for copy work

26

expenses. Docket No. 70, at 3-4. Because this case is in the early stage of litigation and discovery

27
1

28

The regulation also provides that carbon paper shall be made available to any inmate who
requests it for legal purposes.
-2-

1

is still ongoing, Plaintiff has demonstrated the need to have his prison copy work limit increased by

2

$30. The Court advises Plaintiff, however, that he should use his copying privileges sparingly, and

3

utilize carbon paper to duplicate documents when possible.

4

III. Conclusion

5

Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for order to extend prison copy work

7
8
9
10

limits (Docket No. 70) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Nevada Department of Corrections shall increase
Plaintiff’s copy work limit so that he is allotted an additional $30 worth of copy privileges.
DATED: December 2, 2014

11
12
13
14

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-