The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION, WITH PREJUDICE (Doc. 40)
Plaintiff Shaun Darnell Garland was proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was dismissed and judgment was entered on December 24, 2008. Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal on January 7, 2009. On January 15, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a copy of the excerpts of record. (Doc. 32.) The motion was granted, and Plaintiff was provided with the excerpts of record provided for in Ninth Circuit Rule 30-1.4(a).*fn1 (Doc. 36.)
On March 3, 2009, Plaintiff filed another motion seeking copies of his original complaint, motion for a declaratory judgment and/or injunctive relief, objections, and first amended complaint, and a copy of his original complaint in 2:06-cv-00400-FCD-DAD, which was transferred from the Sacramento Division to the Fresno Division on March 10, 2006, and assigned case number 1:06-cv-00270-OWW-WMW. (Doc. 37.) The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion on July 6, 2009, stating that Plaintiff shall be provided with copies of documents 1, 8, 16, and 18 in this action, but not a copy of the complaint in 2:06-cv-00400-FCD-DAD/1:06-cv-00270-OWWWMW because a challenge to any orders or rulings in either of those cases is not properly raised in this case, and there is no entitlement to seek, in this case, copies of documents in either of those cases. (Doc. 39.)
On July 13, 2009, Plaintiff filed another motion seeking a copy of his complaint in case number 2:06-cv-00400-FCD-DAD/1:06-cv-00270-OWW-WMW. Plaintiff argues that the complaint is relevant to his appeal and is an excerpt of the record to which he is entitled.
Plaintiff is appealing the Court's order filed December 24, 2008, in which this action was dismissed. At issue in that order was Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed March 31, 2008. Despite Plaintiff's argument to the contrary, the complaint filed in case number 2:06-cv-00400-FCDDAD/1:06-cv-00270-OWW-WMW does not appear to be relevant to Plaintiff's appeal in this action, and therefore does not constitute an excerpt record to which Plaintiff is entitled under Ninth Circuit Rule 30-1.4(a).
Plaintiff's recourse is to raise this issue with the appellate court in his pending appeal if he believes the complaint is part of the record to which he is entitled and that this Court has erred in denying his request for a copy. Absent a directive from the appellate court to provide the copy, no further requests for a copy will be considered by this Court unless Plaintiff is willing to pay the copy cost of $113.50, which is fifty cents per page for his two-hundred twenty-seven page complaint, plus postage.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for a copy of court document 1 in case number 2:06-cv-00400-FCD-DAD/1:06-cv-00270-OWW-WMW, filed July 13, 2009, is HEREBY ORDERED DENIED, without prejudice.