Weddle v. Baker et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying 13 Motion to Vacate, granting 15 Motion to Extend Copy Work Limit (in the amount of $5.00; copy of order mailed to NDOC), denying as moot 16 Motion for Reconsideration, and denying 18 Motion to Order Clerk. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/27/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

RICHARD WEDDLE,

10

Case No. 3:14-cv-00241-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
11
RENEE BAKER et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

I.

DISCUSSION

15

On July 24, 2014, this Court issued a screening order and stayed the case for 90

16

days to give the parties an opportunity to settle their dispute. (Dkt. no. 4.) On August

17

19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for more definite statement which this Court construed

18

as a motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. no. 7, 8.) On August 25, 2014, this Court vacated

19

the original screening order and entered an amended screening order. (Dkt. no. 8 at 8.)

20

In the amended screening order, this Court permitted Counts I and II and part of Count

21

III to proceed. (Id.)

22

On August 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice to appeal this Court’s original

23

screening order. (Dkt. no. 9.) On August 28, 2014, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion

24

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because the Court had vacated the

25

order Plaintiff was trying to appeal. (Dkt. no. 12.) On September 25, 2014, the Ninth

26

Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. (Dkt. no. 19.)

27

Currently, before the Court are a motion to vacate this Court’s amended

28

screening order, a motion to extend prison copywork limit, a motion to reconsider the

1

denial of application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and a motion to order the

2

clerk of the court. (Dkt. no. 13, 15, 16, 18.)

3

A.

4

In this motion, Plaintiff wants this Court to vacate its amended screening order

5

because he wants to appeal this Court’s original screening order. (Dkt. no. 13.) The

6

Court denies this motion because doing so would result in the reinstatement of counts

7

that the Court had previously dismissed with prejudice in its amended screening order.

8

Moreover, the amended screening order governs claims that may proceed in this case.

9

Plaintiff has the right to appeal the Court’s amended screening order at the conclusion

10

MOTION TO VACATE

of this case should he wish to do so.

11

B.

12

Plaintiff has filed a motion to extend his copy work limit. (Dkt. no. 15.) An inmate

13

has no constitutional right to free photocopying. Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521

14

(9th Cir. 1991). Pursuant to NDOC administrative regulation 722.01(7)(D), inmates “can

15

only accrue a maximum of $100 debt for copy work expenses for all cases, not per

16

case.” In this district, courts have found that they can order a prison to provide limited

17

photocopying when it is necessary for an inmate to provide copies to the court and other

18

parties. See Allen v. Clark Cnty. Det. Ctr., 2:10-CV-00857-RLH, 2011 WL 886343, *2

19

(D. Nev. Mar. 11, 2011). In this case, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request to extend his

20

copy work account limit by another $5.00.

MOTION TO EXTEND PRISON COPYWORK LIMIT

21

C.

22

In this motion, Plaintiff wants this Court to reconsider its denial to continue his in

23

forma pauperis status on appeal. (Dkt. no. 16.) The Court denies this motion as moot

24

because the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

25

D.

26

In this motion, Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the Clerk of the Court to notify

27

Plaintiff of any changes made to the civil docket by mailing Plaintiff a copy of the

28

changes. (Dkt. no. 18.) Plaintiff states that he has written the Clerk of the Court to

MOTION TO ORDER CLERK OF COURT

2

1

provide him a civil docket sheet and that he has been told that he must pay $0.40 for

2

the document. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states that he does not have any money and cannot

3

pay for the document. (Id.)

4

The Court denies the motion. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status does not entitle

5

Plaintiff to free copies of documents from the Clerk’s Office. The Clerk’s Office has

6

correctly informed Plaintiff that “[t]here is a per page charge for copy work. Copies

7

produced from an electronic format (CM/ECF) are $.10 per page; copies produced from

8

a physical format are $.50 per page.”

9

II.

10
11

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the motion to vacate (dkt. no. 13) is

denied.

12

It is further ordered that the motion to extend prison copy work limit (dkt. no. 15)

13

is granted in the amount of $5.00. The Nevada Department of Corrections shall extend

14

Plaintiff’s prison copy work limit by another $5.00.
It is further ordered that the motion for reconsideration (dkt. no. 16) is denied as

15
16

moot.

17

It is further ordered that the motion to order Clerk of Court (dkt. no. 18) is denied.

18

DATED THIS 27th day of October 2014.

19
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3