Taylor v. Lang et al

Filing 47

ORDER denying 22 Motion to Compel; denying 22 Motion for Sanctions; denying 22 Motion for a "Poor Persons" order Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J Gossett on 8/22/2011.(jpet, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Dion Orlando Taylor, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sgt. Michael Lang; Major Eichelberger; ) Warden Levern Cohen; Lt. S. Lowery; M.E. ) Montouth, Grievance Coordinator; all in their ) individual and official capacities, ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________ ) C/A No. 0:10-2327-HMH-PJG ORDER The plaintiff, Dion Orlando Taylor (“Taylor”), a self-represented state prisoner, filed this civil rights matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s motions to compel, for sanctions, and for a “poor persons” order. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff’s discovery request is untimely pursuant to Local Civil Rule 37.01(A) DSC and the scheduling order in this case. Moreover, the defendants appear to have provided the discovery sought. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel and for sanctions are denied. Plaintiff’s motion for a “poor persons” order requests that the court allow him to receive free copies of transcripts and other discovery materials due to his indigent status. While Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this status exempts litigants from paying the filing fees in full at the time the lawsuit is filed; it does not exempt litigants from the costs of copying and filing documents, service of documents other than the complaint, costs, expert witness fees, or sanctions. See, e.g., In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526 (6th Cir. 1990) (stating that the granting of in forma pauperis status “does not give the litigant a right to have documents copied and returned to him at government expense”); Boring v. Kozakiewicz, 833 F.2d Page 1 of 2 468 (3d Cir. 1987) (upholding the district court’s denial of a civil plaintiff’s request for funds to pay an expert medical witness and observing that neither 28 U.S.C. § 1915 nor any other authority provides for such funding). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. ____________________________________ Paige J. Gossett UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE August 22, 2011 Columbia, South Carolina Page 2 of 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?