Home/D. Arizona/Aguilar v. Shinn

Aguilar v. Shinn

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided September 27, 2022·No. 4:19-cv-00359·Unknown

Opinion

WO

Michael Edward Aguilar, No. CV-19-00359-TUC-JGZ

Petitioner, ORDER

v.

David Shinn, et al.,

Defendants. On September 14, 2022, Aguilar filed a motion to reconsider, requesting that the Court reconsider its decision to not provide him with a copy of the entire record for two of his habeas cases: 15-cv-286 and 19-cv-359. (Doc. 93.) As stated in the Court’s August 30, 2022 Order, this Court does not provide copies directly to litigants. (Doc. 90.) The Court will thus deny Aguilar’s motion. The Supreme Court has held that the use of public funds for indigent litigants is only proper when authorized by Congress. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976)). The in forma pauperis statute does not give indigent prisoner litigants the right to have documents copied and returned at government expense. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; In Re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990). If Aguilar wishes to obtain copies, he must order them from the Court Clerk at 50 cents per page. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b); Admin. Off. U.S. Cts., District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, United States Courts (Dec. 1, 2020), https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee-schedule. 1 Further, Aguilar’s request that the Court provide him with copies does not present “highly unusual[] circumstances warranting reconsideration.” See Sch. Dist. No. LJ, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Aguilar may contact the Clerk’s Office at (520) 205-4200 and order copies. Copies of filings are also □□ available online at http://pcl.uscourts.gov. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Aguilar’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 93) is DENIED. 2. This action shall remain closed. Dated this 27th day of September, 2022. □ pote Soipe ; Honorable Jennife □□□□□ United States District Judge

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Aguilar v. Shinn, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Aguilar v. Shinn (Aguilar v. Shinn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. MacCollom
426 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Norman E. Tedder v. Edward Odel, Cpl., James Scott McAlister
890 F.2d 210 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
In Re Donald L. Richard, Sr.
914 F.2d 1526 (Sixth Circuit, 1990)
School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)