IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 22, 2012
MICHAEL WU, PETITIONER,
CMF WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
On March 9, 2011, the court dismissed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding that, despite having been provided numerous opportunities to amend, petitioner's amended petitions and other miscellaneous briefs were unreasonably long and comprised of incomprehensible rambling and unexplained documents with inscrutable notations in the margins. Dckt. Nos. 55, 56. Because the court could not review the pleadings filed by petitioner, the petition was dismissed without further leave to amend for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts. Dckt. No. 55 at 5-6.
Petitioner has subsequently filed requests for a copy of his court trial transcript, his federal and state habeas petitions, and several other documents appearing on the court's docket.
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 (9th Cir. 1989). The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for copies of court records. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court will therefore deny petitioner's requests. Petitioner is again admonished that further motions not specifically authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed and will not be considered by the court.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that petitioner's requests appearing at Docket Nos. 70 and 72 are denied.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.