Daniels v. Kloch et al

Filing 16

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HUGH B. SCOTTORDER denying 8 Motion for copies of documents; granting 10 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or to Move, Oth erwise Plead to Plaintiff's ComplaintPlaintiff's motion for copies of documents without charge (Docket No. 8) is denied. Defendants' motion (Docket No. 10) is granted, nunc pro tunc; W. Mottl answer due 10/6/2011. So Ordered. Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 11/2/2011. (DRH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JOHN DANIELS,
Plaintiff,

Hon. Hugh B. Scott
v.
10CV884(HBS)
(CONSENT)
PATROL OFFICER RALPH, et al.,
Order
Defendants.

Before the Court are two motions: first is the pro se plaintiff’s motion for copies of
documents (Docket No. 8) and second is defendants’ motion for extension of time to Answer
(Docket No. 10). The parties consented to proceed before the undersigned on October 28, 2011
(Docket No. 15), after a Scheduling Order was entered (Docket No. 14).
On plaintiff’s motion for copies, plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(Docket No. 4; cf. Docket No. 2, Pl. Motion). In forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915
allows a plaintiff to file his Complaint without prepaying filing fees, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Courts have held that these “fees” do not include copying costs, Hullom v. Kent, 262 F.2d 862,
863-64 (6th Cir. 1959) (per curiam); In re Fullam, 152 F.2d 141 (D.C. Cir. 1945) (per curiam);
Ex Parte Allen, 78 F. Supp. 786, 787 (E.D. Ky. 1948). Thus, there is no basis for providing a
free copy of the documents sought by plaintiff, despite his appearing in forma pauperis;
plaintiff’s motion (Docket No. 8) is denied.

On defendants’ motion (Docket No. 10), defendant Mottl was served (while other
defendants had yet to be served, Docket No. 11, Defs. Atty. Decl. ¶ 3) and his Answer was due
by August 22, 2011 (id. ¶ 4). On August 25, 2011, defendants moved (nunc pro tunc) for
extension of time after counsel was assigned this case (id. ¶ 5), seeking leave to file the Answer
by October 6, 2011 (Docket No. 10, Notice of Motion). On October 5, 2011, defendants filed
their Answer (Docket No. 12). Plaintiff voiced no objection to the delay in filing the Answer and
appear not to be prejudiced by it. Therefore, defendants’ motion for extension (nunc pro tunc)
(Docket No. 10) is granted.
So Ordered.

/s/ Hugh B. Scott
Honorable Hugh B. Scott
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: Buffalo, New York
November 2, 2011

2