Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Evans v. Tilton

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 7, 2009

THOMAS EARL EVANS, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES E. TILTON, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DENYING MOTION FOR COPY OF TRANSCRIPTS

[Docs. 46, 47]

On February 17, 2009, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was denied and judgment was entered in favor of Respondent. (Court Docs. 44, 45.) The Court declined to issue a certificate of appealability. (Court Doc. 44, at p.2.)

On March 20, 2009, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, motion for an extension of time to file an application for a certificate of appealability, and motion for a copy of the transcripts. (Court Docs. 46, 47, 48.)

I. Motion for Certificate of Appealability

Petitioner requests an extension of time to file an application for a certificate of appealability. (Court Doc. 32.) However, Petitioner is advised that this Court has previously determined that a certificate of appealability shall not be issued, as it was determined that "reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that the state courts' decision denying Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus were not 'objectively unreasonable.'" (Id. at p.20.)

Accordingly, Petitioner request for an extension of time to file an application for a certificate of appealability is denied as MOOT.

II. Motion for Copy of Transcripts of Findings and Recommendation

Petitioner requests copies of "transcripts" of the Magistrate Judge's Finding and Recommendation, dated October 22, 2008, December 19, 2008, and December 31, 2008, "at government expense" because he is indigent. (Court Doc. 47.)

First, Petitioner is advised that the undersigned issued only one Findings and Recommendation on October 22, 2008. (Court Doc. 38.) Respondent filed an opposition to Petitioner's discovery request on December 19, 2008, and a reply to Petitioner objections on December 31, 2008. (Court Docs. 41, 43.) Second, Petitioner is advised that there are no "transcripts" available for any of the referenced documents, and Petitioner was served with a copy of such filings at his address of record. (See Court Docs. 38, 41, 43.) Furthermore, the Clerk does not ordinarily provide free copies of documents to parties. The clerk charges $.50 per page for copies of documents, plus $9.00 per document for certification. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Copies up to 20 pages may be made by the clerk's office at this court upon request and prepayment of the copy fees. The fact that the court has granted leave for Petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis does not entitle him to free copies of documents from the court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2250, the clerk is not required to furnish copies without cost to an indigent petitioner except by order of the judge. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for a copy of "transcripts" must be DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090407

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.