Reed v. Paramo
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Mychal Andra Reed, proceeding in forma pauperis, requested a court-stamped copy of his second request to replace the magistrate judge and clerk. The court granted the request and directed the Clerk to mail the copy, while warning that future requests require a specific showing of need.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's request for a court-stamped copy of ECF No. 113“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for a court-stamped copy of ECF No. 113 and DIRECTS the Office of the Clerk to mail the copy to Plaintiff.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not statutorily mandate free copies of court documents. However, the court exercised its discretion to grant the request despite the lack of statutory entitlement, likely based on equitable considerations or local practice for indigent litigants. The decision to grant the request is a discretionary administrative act that is generally not subject to strict legal standard of review in this context, and the court's warning for future requests is appropriate to prevent abuse. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly cites binding Ninth Circuit authority (Tedder) and persuasive district court authority (Davidson) to establish that IFP status does not create a statutory right to free copies. The court then exercises discretion to grant the request anyway, which is permissible. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the request.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MYCHAL ANDRA REED, Case No.: 18cv361-JLS-LL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 11 v. REQUEST FOR STAMPED COPY OF ECF NO. 113 12 DANIEL PARAMO, et al., 13 Defendants. [ECF No. 122] 14 15 16 17 18 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for a court-stamped copy of 19 Plaintiff’s second request to replace the magistrate judge and clerk assigned to his case 20 [ECF No. 113]. ECF No. 122. Plaintiff states that he is requesting the copy because he is 21 proceeding in forma pauperis and cannot afford copies. Id. “The statute providing authority 22 to proceed in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not include the right to obtain court 23 documents without payment.” Davidson v. Sullivan, No. 17cv0421 H (MDD), 2018 WL 24 2837472, at *42 (S.D. Cal. June 8, 2018), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. 25 Davidson v. Kernan, No. 3:17-cv-00421-H-MDD, 2018 WL 3913395 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 26 2018); see also Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding 28 U.S.C. § 27 1915 does not waive costs of litigation other than filing of the complaint and service of 28 process). Nevertheless, the Court will allow this request but warns Plaintiff that any further 1 ||requests will need to demonstrate a specific showing of need. See Davidson v. Sullivan, 2 |}2018 WL 2837472, at *42. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for a 3 || court-stamped copy of ECF No. 113 and DIRECTS the Office of the Clerk to mail the 4 ||copy to Plaintiff. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: April 6, 2020 NO 7 Ce | g Honorable Linda Lopez 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28