Chelberg v. FBOP Director
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Travis Chelberg, a pro se litigant, moved for copies of the court docket and local rules without prepayment based on his indigency. The court granted the request for the docket at no expense but denied the request for other documents, requiring prepayment.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for copy of docket granted“The Clerk is directed to send Petitioner a copy of the docket in Case No. 3:19-cv-748-BTM at no expense.” | agree with court The court ordered the Clerk to provide the docket at no expense. While the order does not explicitly cite the statutory authority for this specific action (likely 28 U.S.C. § 1914 or local practice regarding access to court records for indigent litigants), providing the docket sheet is a standard administrative accommodation for pro se litigants to ensure access to the court. The decision is consistent with general principles of access to justice. |
Motion for other court documents (Local Rules) denied without prepayment“Except as otherwise provided by law, Petitioner must prepay for any other copies desires.” | agree with court The court correctly noted that in forma pauperis (IFP) status exempts litigants from filing fees, not from the costs of copying documents. The court cited Porter v. Dep't of Treasury for this proposition. Furthermore, the court noted that the Local Rules are available electronically for free, negating the need for paid copies. The denial is legally sound. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate legal distinction between filing fees and copying costs. It correctly identifies that the Local Rules are available electronically, rendering the request for paid copies unnecessary. The citation to Porter is appropriate for the proposition that IFP status does not cover copying costs. The order is concise and directly addresses the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Civ. Case No. 3:19-cv-0748-BTM TRAVIS CHELBERG, Crim. Case No. 3:09-cr-0365-BTM 13 Petitioner, 14 ORDER GRANTING REQUEST v. FOR COPY OF DOCKET AND 15 DENYING REQUEST FOR OTHER 16 FBOP DIRECTOR, COURT DOCUMENTS WITHOUT PREPAYMENT 17 Respondent.
18 [Civ. Case, ECF No. 28] 19 Before the Court is Petitioner Travis Chelberg’s pro se motion seeking copies 20 of the docket for Case No. 3:19-cv-0748-BTM-RBB and the Local Rules of Practice 21 for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the “Local 22 Rules”). (Civ. Case, ECF No. 28.) Petitioner argues he is entitled to copies of 23 such documents without (pre)payment because he is purportedly indigent. (Id. at 24 3.) Yet Petitioner does not explain why his indigency entitles him to free copies of 25 Court documents.1 See Porter v. Dep't of Treasury, 564 F.3d 176, 180 n.3 (3d Cir. 26 27 28 1 1 ||2009) (“[T]he granting of [in forma pauperis] status exempts litigants from filing 2 ||fees only. It does not exempt litigants from the costs of copying and filing 3 ||documents; service of documents other than the complaint; costs; expert witness 4 fees; or sanctions.” (internal citations omitted)). Further, he has not demonstrated 5 he does not have access to the Local Rules, which are available electronically 6 || at https:/Awww.casd.uscourts.gov/rules/local-rules.aspx. 7 Upon the foregoing and due consideration, Petitioner’s motion (Civ. Case, 8 || ECF No. 28) is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The Clerk is directed to 9 ||send Petitioner a copy of the docket in Case No. 3:19-cv-748-BTM at no expense. 10 ||Except as otherwise provided by law, Petitioner must prepay for any other copies 11 desires. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 || Dated: September 19, 2019 ) 15 au led. Mahou 16 Hono ble Barry Ted Mosk¢witz United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 eat relates solely to transcripts of Court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. §