Arellano v. Blahnik

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL ARELLANO, Case No.: 16cv2412-CAB-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO 13 v. BE SENT COPIES OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS [Doc. No. 167] 14 BLAHNIK, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On October 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to be sent print out of certain 18 documents. [Doc. No. 167.] Specifically, Plaintiff requests a copy of Docket Nos. 8, 13 19 and 15. [Doc. No. 167 at 2.] 20 While “prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts,” Bounds v. 21 Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977), there is no constitutional right to receive photocopies 22 free of charge. Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1990), overruled on other 23 grounds by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); see also Jones v. Franzen, 697 24 F.2d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 1983) (“[B]road as the constitutional concept of liberty is, it does 25 not include the right to xerox.”); Wanninger v. Davenport, 697 F.2d 992, 994 (11th Cir. 26 1983) (finding no violation of “appellant's constitutional rights when [prison officials] 27 refused to provide him with free photocopies....”); Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166, 28 183 (3d Cir. 1997) ( [T]here is no First Amendment right to subsidized [legal] mail or 1 photocopying.”). 2 The rule prohibiting free photocopies is the same for plaintiffs proceeding in forma 3 pauperis. See In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990) (Title 28 U.S.C. section 4 1915 “waives only ‘prepayment of fees and costs and security ...’ [but] does not give the 5 litigant a right to have documents copied and returned to him at government expense.”); 6 Hadsell v. Comm'r Internal Revenue Service, 107 F.3d 750, 752 (9th Cir. 1997); Dixon v. 7 Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (explaining that title 28 U.S.C. section 1915— 8 governing proceedings in forma pauperis—does not waive the payment of fees or 9 expenses required for an indigent's witnesses); Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211–12 (9th 10 Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976) 11 (holding that “the expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper 12 only when authorized by Congress,” and that 28 U.S.C. section 1915 does not provide 13 such authorization); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 159 (3d Cir. 1993) (courts are not 14 authorized “to commit federal monies for payment of necessary expenses in a civil suit 15 brought by an indigent litigant.”); St. Hilaire v. Winhelm, 1996 WL 119505 (9th Cir. Mar. 16 18, 1996) (“There is no statutory requirement for the government to provide a litigant 17 proceeding in forma pauperis with copies of deposition transcripts.”). Nevertheless, 18 “although a prisoner does not have an unlimited right to free copying, some reasonable 19 means of access to a photocopy machine will be necessary to protect an inmate's right of 20 access to the courts.” Armstrong v. Scribner, 2008 WL 268974, at *20 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 21 2008) (quoting Giles v. Tate, 907 F. Supp. 1135, 1138 (S.D. Ohio 1995)). 22 Plaintiff claims he needs Docket Nos. 8, 13 and 15 to prepare for issues related to 23 punitive damages, which may be the subject of a future motion for summary judgment. 24 [See Doc. No. 165 at 2.] While Plaintiff is not necessarily entitled to copies of those 25 documents, in the interests of moving this case forward and assisting Plaintiff in 26 preparing for the upcoming motion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request. 27 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The Clerk of the Court shall send to 28 Plaintiff, along with a copy of this order, a copy of Docket Nos. 8, 13, and 15. 1 Going forward, Plaintiff should retain a copy of any documents he thinks he may 2 ||need to reference later. If Plaintiff should need further copies of any court documents 3 the Clerk of the Court, they may be purchased at $0.50 per page. 4 Dated: October 28, 2020 OE ° Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28