ORDER

JOHN M. GERRARD, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on a "Motion for Relief/Other Update on filing fee" (filing 432) filed by pro se defendant Bryan S. Behrens. Behrens' motion contains five separate requests: (1) a request for status, (2) a request for extension of the initial partial filing fee deadline, (3) a request for transfer of funds, (4) a request for copies, and (5) a request for a partial copy of the Court's docket. The Court will provide Behrens with a copy of the docket, but will deny the balance of his motion.

First, Behrens asks for an update on the status of the initial partial filing fee that the Court directed him to file on or before November 4, 2014. See filing 429. The Court will grant Behrens' request for status: the Court received a payment on October 14 that was credited to Behrens' initial partial filing fee, and finds that Behrens has substantially complied with the Court's initial partial filing fee deadline. The Court considers that obligation satisfied, and will continue collecting the balance of the appellate filing fee as set forth in the Court's order (filing 429) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Accordingly, Behrens' second request, for an extension of the filing fee deadline, is moot.

Next, Behrens makes a peculiar request for $8,000 in receivership assets to be released to him, claiming that release of the funds was ordered in January 2008 but that he never received them. Filing 432 at 2. He is wrong. On January 31, 2008, the Court froze Behrens' assets but ordered that he and his wife "shall be entitled to withdraw a total of $4,000 per month for January and February 2008 . . . for reasonable living expenses." Filing 51 at 4. On February 1, the Court released certain specified bank accounts from the asset freeze, permitting Behrens to withdraw the funds. Filing 53. If he failed to do so at the time, the Court cannot help him now.1

Fourth, Behrens asks the Court for copies of an enormous number of documents, purportedly to prepare for his appeal. Filing 432 at 3-4. The Court will deny this request. Behrens is asking for 567 pages of documents, and the Court sees no useful purpose for most of them. It is evident to the Court that Behrens intends to embark on a fishing trip, looking for things to complain about to the Eighth Circuit that were not objected to in this Court. And if that's how he wishes to spend his time, the Court can't stop him—but as has been repeatedly explained, the Court need not pay his litigation expenses. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Lewis v. Precision Optics, Inc., 612 F.2d 1074, 1075 (8th Cir. 1980); see also, Jackson v. Fla. Dep't of Fin. Servs., 479 Fed. Appx. 289, 292-93 (11th Cir. 2012); Harless v. United States, 329 F.2d 397, 398-99 (5th Cir. 1964); Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661, 662 (6th Cir. 1964); Hullom v. Kent, 262 F.2d 862, 863-64 (6th Cir. 1959); In re Fullam, 152 F.2d 141, 141 (D.C. Cir. 1945); Parker v. Dir. of Dep't of Corrs, 2010 WL 7746630, at *1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 16, 2010).2 His request for copies will be denied.

Finally, Behrens asks for a copy of the Court's docket from filing 372 to present. Filing 432 at 4. That, the Court will provide; the requested information has been appended to this order.

IT IS ORDERED: