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.

Jay G Kimpel v. I Marquez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 30, 2012

JAY G KIMPEL,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
I MARQUEZ, CDC CORRECTIONAL OFFICER; D. MARTINEZ, RJ DONOVAN STATE PRISON; A BUENROSTRO, RJ DONOVAN STATE PRISON; RICO, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, RJ DONOVAN STATE
PRISON; AND RINK, LIEUTENANT, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: David H. Bartick United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COMPLETE COPIES OF ALL DOCKET ENTRIES [ECF No. 66]

Plaintiff Jay Kimpel is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on a civil rights action filed under 28 U.S.C. §1983. (ECF No. 1.) On April 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court send him a complete copy of every entry on the docket because he either does not have copies or his copies were lost when he was transferred between correctional facilities. (ECF No. 66.) Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, he is not entitled to free photocopies of every docket entry. The Ninth Circuit and other Courts of Appeal have traditionally held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides no statutory authority for federal courts to authorize waiver of witness fees or to front other costs of litigation on behalf of an in forma pauperis litigant. Section 1915 only authorizes the court to permit commencement of suit without prepayment of fees and costs upon a showing of indigency. Hadsell v. Comm'r Internal Revenue Service, 107 F.3d 750, 752 (9th Cir. 1997); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993); Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Further, prisoners have no constitutional right to free photocopy services. Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). See Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166, 183 (3d Cir.1997) ("[T]here is no First Amendment right to subsidized [legal] mail or photocopying.").

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Complete Copies of All Docket Entries is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff a copy of the current docket sheet. If Plaintiff can identify the specific docket entries he needs, and explain why he needs them, the Court will reconsider his request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120430

© 1992-2012 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.