Flores v. Morgen et al

Filing 66

ORDER denying 63 Motion for Order To File Legal Journal by Judge Karen L Strombom.(JLP)(copy mailed to plaintiff)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the Plaintiff's Motion to file his "Legal Journal" and to make copies of the journal and serve it on counsel for Defendants. Dkt. 63. On June 26, 2009, Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint. Dkt. 62. On July 24, 2009, Plaintiff filed a proposed First Amended Complaint, naming Doe Smith, Kimberly Dotson, Doe Able, Rusty Smith, Maggie Miller-Stout, G. Burke, Doe Hewston and Jan Morgen. Dkt. 64. Along with his proposed First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff submitted his "Legal Journal," with the notation , "[t]his is the only one, there are no copies due to the expense of getting them. I need this filed with the Court and then sent to defendants attorneys if the Court agrees!" Dkt. 63. The Court Clerk scanned the first page of the journal into CM/ECF and noted ORDER - 1 This civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Before the Court is v. JAN MORGEN, et al, Defendants. JOSEPH R. FLORES, No. C08-5621 RJB/KLS Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE LEGAL JOURNAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the request for the Court's consideration as a "Motion for Order to File Flores Legal Journal. Dkt. 63. Despite Mr. Flores' in forma pauperis status, he is responsible for the payment of his own copying costs. The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. 1915, does not authorize payment by the Court of indigent litigants' general copying costs. "The Supreme Court has declared that `the expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress....' " Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976)). Section 1915 authorizes the Court to pay for service of process on behalf of an indigent litigant and, in certain cases, to pay the costs of printing the record on appeal and preparing a transcript of proceedings, but the statute does not authorize the Court to pay the costs for an indigent litigant's general copy requests. Cf. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir.1993) ( 1915 does not authorize the district courts to waive payment of fees or expenses for witnesses); Tedder, 890 F.2d at 211-12 (same). Accordingly, it is ORDERED: (1) Plaintiff's request that the Court file his legal journal, make copies and serve Defendants (Dkt. 63) shall be DENIED. (2) The Clerk is directed to return the original legal journal to Plaintiff. (3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants who have appeared of record. DATED this 19th day of August, 2009. A ORDER - 2 Karen L. Strombom United States Magistrate Judge

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?