Austin v. Eppinger

N.D. Ohio

Austin v. Eppinger

DecidedApril 15, 2024

Docket1:21-cv-00922

StatusUnknown

This text of Austin v. Eppinger (Austin v. Eppinger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Austin v. Eppinger, (N.D. Ohio 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES AUSTIN, pro se ) CASE NO. 1:21-cv-00922 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGE DAVID A. RUIZ ) V. ) ) WARDEN CHARMAINE BRACY, ) ) Respondent. ) ) ORDER

In May of 2021, pro se Petitioner James Austin filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (R. 1). He paid the $5.00 filing fee. Jd. Respondent filed a Return of Writ on October 6, 2021 (R. 11), and Petitioner filed a 109-page Traverse on March 3, 2022. (R. 20). On February 12, 2024, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied. (R. 27). On February 26, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion for a forty-five day extension of time (R. 28) to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which the Court granted. On March 18, 2024, Petitioner filed a “Request for copy of Traverse to Return of Writ.” (R. 30). Petitioner provides no explanation for why he does not possess a hard copy or electronic copy of his own Traverse. Jd.’ He indicates he is indigent and cannot afford the cost of copies. Id.

! The Court notes that the Traverse is not handwritten, but a typed, computer-processed document.

Petitioner’s request is DENIED. To the extent that he is asking for copies of documents he has filed with this Court, he must pay for them. “[T]he law is settled that an inmate does not enjoy a federal constitutional right to unlimited free photocopying services.” Bell Bey v. Toombs, 19 F.3d 1432 (6th Cir. 1994). “Plaintiff’s indigence and his status as a prisoner do not entitle him

to any special privileges in pursuing litigation.” Kerr v. Lenz, No. 3:22-CV-1054, 2022 WL 3043019, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 2, 2022) (Helmick, J.) (collecting cases). Although the Court recognizes that Petitioner is “an indigent prisoner proceeding pro se, he is not entitled to copies of his [filings] at the court’s expense.” Id. (citing Hammock v. Rogers, No. 1:17-CV-1939, 2019 WL 651602, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 15, 2019) (Parker, M.J.). Petitioner may seek to obtain copies of any filing at his own expense through the Court’s website. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ David A. Ruiz David A. Ruiz United States District Judge Date: April 15, 2024

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES AUSTIN, pro se ) CASE NO. 1:21-cv-00922 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGE DAVID A. RUIZ ) V. ) ) WARDEN CHARMAINE BRACY, ) ) Respondent. ) ) ORDER

In May of 2021, pro se Petitioner James Austin filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (R. 1). He paid the $5.00 filing fee. Jd. Respondent filed a Return of Writ on October 6, 2021 (R. 11), and Petitioner filed a 109-page Traverse on March 3, 2022. (R. 20). On February 12, 2024, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied. (R. 27). On February 26, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion for a forty-five day extension of time (R. 28) to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which the Court granted. On March 18, 2024, Petitioner filed a “Request for copy of Traverse to Return of Writ.” (R. 30). Petitioner provides no explanation for why he does not possess a hard copy or electronic copy of his own Traverse. Jd.’ He indicates he is indigent and cannot afford the cost of copies. Id.

! The Court notes that the Traverse is not handwritten, but a typed, computer-processed document.

Petitioner’s request is DENIED. To the extent that he is asking for copies of documents he has filed with this Court, he must pay for them. “[T]he law is settled that an inmate does not enjoy a federal constitutional right to unlimited free photocopying services.” Bell Bey v. Toombs, 19 F.3d 1432 (6th Cir. 1994). “Plaintiff’s indigence and his status as a prisoner do not entitle him

to any special privileges in pursuing litigation.” Kerr v. Lenz, No. 3:22-CV-1054, 2022 WL 3043019, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 2, 2022) (Helmick, J.) (collecting cases). Although the Court recognizes that Petitioner is “an indigent prisoner proceeding pro se, he is not entitled to copies of his [filings] at the court’s expense.” Id. (citing Hammock v. Rogers, No. 1:17-CV-1939, 2019 WL 651602, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 15, 2019) (Parker, M.J.). Petitioner may seek to obtain copies of any filing at his own expense through the Court’s website. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ David A. Ruiz David A. Ruiz United States District Judge Date: April 15, 2024

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Austin v. Eppinger, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-eppinger-ohnd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack