Aden v. Herrington et al

Filing 37

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 36 Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 10/25/12. (jl1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

MOUSEN ADEN,

Case No. 1:12-cv-86

Plaintiff,

Spiegel, J.
Bowman, M.J.

v.

DR. RYAN HERRINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This prisoner civil rights litigation was initiated by Plaintiff on January 30, 2012.
On March 8, 2012, the undersigned magistrate judge granted Plaintiff leave to proceed
in forma pauperis on certain claims, and directed the United States Marshal to serve
two of the named Defendants on those claims. However, the undersigned also issued a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) that recommended the dismissal of specific
claims brought against three other Defendants. (Doc. 7).

On May 15, 2012, the

presiding district judge adopted that R&R and ordered Plaintiff’s equal protection claim
to proceed, while dismissing claims concerning the adequacy of Plaintiff’s medical care
for an ankle injury. (Doc. 16). However, on September 12, 2012, the Court vacated its
prior order adopting the R&R, granted Plaintiff’s motion for relief from that order, and
permitted Plaintiff additional time in which to file any objections to the R&R. (Doc. 33).
Plaintiff filed objections on September 24, 2012, which remain pending before the

presiding district judge.
In addition to objections to the pending R&R, Plaintiff filed a motion “for case
status and copies.” (Doc. 36). That non-dispositive motion has been referred to the
undersigned magistrate judge and is addressed below.
Plaintiff seeks “a summary of the status of the case; chronologically ordered
outline of all the documents filed on the docket, and a copy of the ‘filed’ stamped copies
of the original complaint and all the documents provided in the commencing of this
action.

For the most part, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied, because indigent civil

litigants are not entitled to free copies but instead must bear their own litigation
expenses. Dujardine v. Michigan Dept. Of Corrections, 2009 WL 3401172 at *1 (W.D.
Mich. Oct. 19, 2009)(collecting cases). To the extent that Plaintiff himself originally filed
the complaint and other documents, he should have retained a copy and is presumed to
know the contents. To the extent that documents have been filed by Defendants or by
this Court, Plaintiff has already been served with a copy by the Clerk of Court.
Additional copies of any document are available by writing to the Clerk of Court, and
enclosing prepayment in the amount of 10 cents per page for any document that is filed
in the electronic case record.
Nevertheless, because the record also reflects that Plaintiff’s address of record
has changed more than once since the commencement of this litigation, 1 and that the
Clerk of Court re-served mail initially returned as “undeliverable,” the Court will direct

1

Plaintiff filed a change of address only once, but a second change of address was entered by
the Clerk in response to other motions filed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is reminded that it is the obligation of
every litigant to update the Court with his current address, failing which, litigation may become subject to
dismissal for failure to prosecute.

2

the Clerk to serve Plaintiff with a copy of the docket sheet. Should Plaintiff believe that
he is still missing copies of any prior Order of this Court, as reflected on that docket
sheet, Plaintiff may renew his motion by identifying the particular document that he
failed to receive, and setting forth why he believes he did not receive.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s motion for case status and for
copies (Doc. 26) be granted in part and denied in part.

The Clerk of Court shall

forward to Plaintiff a single copy of the docket sheet, but need not forward Plaintiff
copies of any document identified therein absent prepayment, or further Order of this
Court.
s/ Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge

3