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.

Love v. Modhaddam

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


August 23, 2010

DANTE LOVE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
EILYA MODHADDAM, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 19, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to compel seeking the court to order defendants to provide plaintiff with a copy of his deposition. The court denied this motion noting that a deposition must be obtained from the officer before whom the deposition is taken. Plaintiff has filed a new motion requesting the court to pay $158.75 for plaintiff to obtain the deposition or for the court to order the reporting company to waive their fee.

As the court previously stated, there is no provision under the Federal Rules or the Local Rules for free copies of deposition transcripts. The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for the purpose sought by plaintiff. Nor has plaintiff ever satisfactorily explained why he needs a copy of his own deposition other than a general statement that it will aid him in preparation for discovery and trial.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's August 3, 2010 motion, (Doc. 41) is denied.

20100823

© 1992-2010 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.