Hill 276083 v. Arizona, State of

1 WO KM 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Jamal J. Hill, No. CV 18-04898-PHX-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, v. ORDER State of Arizona, Defendants.

15 On December 26, 2018, Plaintiff Jamal J. Hill, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a March 6, 2019 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and dismissed the Complaint.

19 Judgment was entered the same day.

20 On March 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 28, 2019, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal; the mandate issued on June 20, 2019. On January 28, 2020 Plaintiff filed a second Notice of Appeal and a Motion for copies. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the second appeal as duplicative and stated that to the extent the January 28 Notice of Appeal included a Motion for Copies, “the motion is referred to the district court for whatever consideration the district court deems appropriate.”

27 Plaintiff seeks “copies of case #2:18cv04898-JAT-CDB”; Plaintiff does not specify the documents for which he seeks copies.

1 The Clerk of Court charges 50 cents per page for reproducing any record or paper.

2| See Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees 4, foll. 28 U.S.C. § 1914. An inmate has no right to free copies of pleadings. See In Re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 127 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (28 U.S.C. § 1915 “does not give a litigant a right to have documents copied | and returned to him at government expense’). Further, “[t]he Supreme Court has declared that ‘the expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress... .” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) | (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976). The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not authorize the Court to pay the costs for an indigent 10 litigant’s general copy requests. Cf Dixon v. Yist, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) | (Section 1915 does not authorize the district courts to waive payment of fees or expenses for witnesses); Tedder, 890 F.2d at 211-12 (same). The Court will therefore deny | Plaintiff's Motion for Copies.

14 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Copies (filed with the Notice of | Appeal at Doc. 17) is denied. This case must remain closed.

16 Dated this 26th day of March, 2020.

18 i C 0 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge