(PC) Hammler v. Johnson

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALLEN HAMMLER, Case No. 2:22-cv-01252-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER REGINA JOHNSON, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 On May 19, 2023, plaintiff filed a request for a courtesy copy of his complaint. ECF No. 15. In response to plaintiff’s request, the Clerk of Court sent him a response that read, “The Clerk’s Office will provide copies of documents and of the docket sheet at $.50 per page. [ECF No.] 11 First Amended Complaint is 50 pages.” See ECF No. 15 (docket text). Plaintiff has since filed a motion seeking an “official ruling” from the court on his request for a courtesy copy.

22 ECF No. 16. That motion is denied. The Clerk’s Office properly responded to plaintiff’s request and notified him that copies would be provided upon payment of the associated cost. See 28 24 U.S.C. § 1914; United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976) (holding that “the expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress . . . .”); cf. Delphine v. Morley, No. 1:19-cv-01076-JLT-SKO (PC), 2023 WL 266524, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2023) (observing that the in forma pauperis statute “does give courts the authority to order the payment of a plaintiff’s associated court costs, either by the Court or over | time by the plaintiff”).

3 | IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 / JEREMY D. PETERSON 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ;