Filed: Jul. 11, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2013
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN M. GERRARD, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on a filing from pro se defendant Bryan S. Behrens that the Court interprets, as it relates to this case, as a motion for copies (filing 342). That motion will be denied. Behrens does not have the right to receive copies of documents without payment, even though he has been granted leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. See, 28 U.S.C. 1915; Lewis v. Precision Optics, Inc., 612 F.2d 1074 , 1075
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN M. GERRARD, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on a filing from pro se defendant Bryan S. Behrens that the Court interprets, as it relates to this case, as a motion for copies (filing 342). That motion will be denied. Behrens does not have the right to receive copies of documents without payment, even though he has been granted leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. See, 28 U.S.C. 1915; Lewis v. Precision Optics, Inc., 612 F.2d 1074 , 1075 (..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN M. GERRARD, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on a filing from pro se defendant Bryan S. Behrens that the Court interprets, as it relates to this case, as a motion for copies (filing 342). That motion will be denied.
Behrens does not have the right to receive copies of documents without payment, even though he has been granted leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Lewis v. Precision Optics, Inc., 612 F.2d 1074, 1075 (8th Cir. 1980). The statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis does not include the right to obtain copies of court filings without payment. Harless v. United States, 329 F.2d 397, 398-99 (5th Cir. 1964); accord Jackson v. Fla. Dep't of Fin. Servs., 479 Fed. Appx. 289, 292-93 (11th Cir. 2012); see also, 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). And the Court is particularly reluctant to subsidize such litigation when the indigent litigant has neither specified the documents he has requested nor explained why he needs copies of them. See, Jackson, 479 Fed. Appx. at 293; Douglas, 327 F.2d at 662; Parker v. Dir. of Dep't of Corrs, 2010 WL 7746630, at *1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 16, 2010).
Here, Behrens has submitted a non-specific request for "a copy of all the billing records submitted and approved by the Court." Filing 342 at 1. The Court has attached to this order a copy of the docket entries that the Court interprets as being responsive to that request: 22 documents totaling 150 pages. Behrens has not explained why he needs these documents, nor is the Court in any event obliged to subsidize Behrens' litigation expenses. Accordingly, Behrens' motion for copies (filing 342) will be denied.
Behrens has at least three other options for obtaining these documents:
(a) Behrens may request the copies again from the Clerk of the Court (preferably using the attached list of docket entries to specify which documents he wants) and submit the prepayment for copy services required by NEGenR 1.2(d). Pursuant to NEGenR 1.2(f) and the fee schedule set by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the charge for reproducing any record or paper is 50¢ per page. The charge for all the documents reflected on the attached list would, therefore, be $75.
(b) Behrens may ask a family member, friend, or other associate to go to the U.S. Courthouse in Lincoln or Omaha during regular business hours and purchase paper copies of documents accessed electronically from the public terminals available in the clerk's office. Pursuant to NEGenR 1.3(a)(1)(A)(iii) and the fee schedule for electronic public access set by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the fee for such copies is 10¢ per page.
(c) Behrens may contact his former civil counsel to see if counsel retained copies of the documents that Behrens wants, and ask counsel if they are willing to provide copies of those documents to Behrens.
The Court also notes Behrens' filing of a request that the Clerk of the Court provide copies of documents to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (filing 343). The Clerk of the Court has done as Behrens requested. See filing 345. The Court takes this opportunity to inform Behrens, however, that his request may have been unnecessary. Rule 30A(a)(2) of the Eighth Circuit Local Rules provides:
In all pro se appeals, the entire district court record is available for review. If the record is available in electronic format, the court will review the electronic version of the record. At the time a pro se notice of appeal is filed, the clerk of the district court must transmit to the clerk of this court the originals or paper copies of those portions of the original record which are not available through PACER, such as documentary exhibits, administrative records and state court files.
In filing 343, Behrens requested documents that all had CM/ECF filing numbers: documents that were, in other words, available electronically. Behrens is informed, for his own future convenience and the convenience of the clerk's office, that he does not need to ask the clerk of the district court to forward electronically available records to the Court of Appeals.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Behrens' motion for copies (filing 342) is denied.
