Hearn v. Warden
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff, a pro se inmate, moved for a copy of his amended complaint after claiming his paperwork was destroyed. The court granted the motion, ordering the Clerk to mail specific documents to the plaintiff while noting that future copies must be purchased.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Copy of Amended Complaint granted“Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to manage the docket and ensure the plaintiff, a pro se litigant, had access to the court record. While the court correctly noted there is no constitutional right to free copies, it found it 'appropriate' to provide them in this specific instance due to the plaintiff's claim of lost documents. This is a discretionary administrative decision that is generally not subject to strict legal standards of review, and the court's decision to assist the pro se litigant is consistent with judicial practice. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard (no constitutional right to free copies) but exercises discretion to grant the request based on the specific circumstances (lost paperwork). It includes a necessary caveat that this is an exception and not a precedent for future free copies.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM HEARN, Case No.: 22-cv-255-AGS-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. COPY OF AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 J. CEPEDA, Correction Officer – RJD; [Dkt. No. 121] L. ALFARO, Correction Officer – RJD; 15 S. BRAVO-MANCILLA, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, moves to be resent a 20 copy of his amended complaint. Dkt. No. 121. He represents “most of [his paperwork] was 21 destroyed” because of an altercation involving his previous cellmate. Id. 22 “While ‘prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts,’ there is no 23 constitutional right to receive photocopies free of charge.” Arellano v. Blahnik, 2020 WL 24 6319130, at *1 (S.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2020, No. 16CV2412-CAB-MSB) (quoting Bounds v. 25 Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977)); see also Jones v. Franzen, 697 F.2d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 26 1983) (“[B]road as the constitutional concept of liberty is, it does not include the right to 27 xerox.”)). This is no different for litigants proceeding in forma pauperis. Arellano, 2020 28 WL 6319130, at *1 (citing Hadsell v. Comm’r, 107 F.3d 750, 752 (9th Cir. 1997)). | Although the Court does not generally provide parties with copies of the pleadings, 2 given the circumstances here, the Court finds it appropriate to provide Plaintiff with a copy 3 of his amended complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. The Clerk’s + || Office is ORDERED to mail Plaintiff a copy of this order along with a copy of Dkt. Nos. > (“Second Amended Complaint’) and 100 (“Order Adopting Report and 6 |! Recommendation and Granting in Part Motion to Dismiss”). Plaintiff is cautioned that the 7 || Court is not ordering the Clerk’s Office to provide Plaintiff with copies of every pleading 8 |! that he may require in the future. If Plaintiff should need copies of any court documents 9 || from the Clerk of the Court, they may be purchased at $0.50 per page. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: July 22, 2025 13 Tb lh we 14 Hon.DavidD.Leshner ——its—S 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28