Brenon v. Public Health Seattle et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying plaintiff's 16 Motion for Order directing defendants to provide use of laptop and related discovery issues. A copy of this Order has been mailed to plaintiff today. Signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler.(GB)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

KIRK A. BRENON,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

CASE NO. C14-1073-RSM-MAT

v.
NANCY LEDGERWOOD, et al.,

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR COURT ORDER

Defendants.

12
13
14

Plaintiff Kirk Brenon proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) in this civil rights

15

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He raises challenges in this lawsuit associated with his

16

medical treatment at the King County Jail, and names nurses Nancy Ledgerwood, Glenn Lirman,

17

David Doe, and Elain Henriksen as defendants.

18

Plaintiff filed a Motion Requesting Court Order. (Dkt. 16.) He seeks an Order directing

19

the King County Prosecutor’s Office or the King County Department of Adult and Juvenile

20

Detention (DAJD) to provide him with (1) the use of a laptop to view digitally stored documents

21

he has requested from Public Health of Seattle and King County, (2) downloaded copies of court

22

rules, and (3) paper, envelopes, and legal tablets.

23

asserting the Court lacks jurisdiction over non-parties King County Prosecutor’s Office and

ORDER
PAGE - 1

Defendants oppose plaintiff’s request,

1

DAJD, and stating that plaintiff has access to the materials needed to pursue his claims in this

2

matter. (Dkt. 18.)

3
4
5

Having now considered the motion and defendants’ response, the Court finds and
concludes as follows:
(1)

Defendants attest that plaintiff was provided with a pro se supplies and

6

information packet upon his designation as a pro se inmate by DAJD, has access to a computer

7

on which he can conduct legal research, including research into court rules, and may purchase

8

additional supplies from the commissary. (See Dkts. 18 & 20.) Also, while he may secure use

9

of a laptop where he receives a discovery request in electronic form not capable of being printed

10

out in paper form (see id.), plaintiff’s document request is not related to discovery (Dkt. 19) and

11

he concedes his ability to obtain the documents at issue in paper form, albeit at greater expense

12

(Dkt. 16 at 2).

13

The Court finds no basis for granting plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff’s IFP status does not

14

exempt him from paying for litigation expenses. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), (d) (permitting only the

15

waiver of prepayment of filing and service of process costs for IFP litigants); Tedder v. Odel,

16

890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (“‘[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an

17

indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress. . . .’”; “Although the plain

18

language of section 1915 provides for service of process for an indigent’s witnesses, it does not

19

waive payment of fees or expenses for those witnesses.”) (quoting United States v. MacCollom,

20

426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976)). Nor do defendants have an obligation to furnish plaintiff with the

21

requested materials. Cf. Rivera v. DiSabato, 962 F. Supp. 38, 40 (D.N.J. 1997) (denying request

22

for free deposition transcript; “[P]laintiff’s obligation, even as an indigent litigant, to finance his

23

own litigation expenses cannot be arbitrarily thrust upon defendants.”).

ORDER
PAGE - 2

Plaintiff’s Motion

1
2
3

Requesting Court Order (Dkt. 16) is, for these reasons, DENIED.
(2)

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff, counsel for

defendants, and to Judge Martinez.
DATED this 17th day of November, 2014.

4
5

A

6

Mary Alice Theiler
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER
PAGE - 3