Ocasio v. McDaniel et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying 21 petitioner's Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. See order re specifics. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 2/19/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which petitioner, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se. On January 19, 2010, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order of January 11, 2010, in which the court denied petitioner's motion for a subpoena to obtain public documents. (Docket #21.) Respondent filed an opposition to petitioner's motion on January 20, 2010, (Docket #22) and petitioner filed a supplement to his motion on January 21, 2010 (Docket #23). On February 16, 2010, petitioner filed a second supplement to his motion. (Docket #26.) In response to petitioner's request in his motion for reconsideration, the court has carefully considered petitioner's reply filed January 11, 2010 (Docket #18) , and his supplement to that reply filed January 13, 2010 (Docket #20). The court finds no basis for reconsideration of its prior order in those pleadings. In connection with his second supplement to his motion for reconsideration, petitioner has attached a letter from the White Pine County Clerk, denying his request for the copies of the files he seeks. The letter explains that: 1) petitioner's requests are time consuming and costly; 2) the office is unable to expend the quantity of time necessary to his request; and 3) in forma vs. E. K. McDANIEL, et al., Respondents. ALEXANDER OCASIO, Petitioner, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3:09-cv-00539-LRH-VPC ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

pauperis status only means there is no charge for a filing fee, service of process, and one copy of any filing in the case in which a party was granted such status. This court finds that this letter does not demonstrate that petitioner is unable to obtain the voluminous documents which he seeks. All it demonstrates is that he is unable to obtain them for free. Petitioner is informed that the fact that petitioner is proceeding in forma pauperis in this court does not entitle him to free copies from another governmental entity. Having found no basis for reconsideration of its prior order in any of the pleadings filed by petitioner, the court hereby DENIES petitioner's motion for reconsideration. DATED this 19th day of February, 2010.

LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2