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)

Download PDF
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

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?