Bell v. Core Civic

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Cameron Bell, Case No.: 2:17-cv-002709-JAD-BNW

4 Plaintiff Order Denying Motion for Status Hearing 5 v. and for Copies of Docket Entries

6 Core Civic, et al., [ECF Nos. 83, 84]

7 Defendants

8 Pro se prisoner Cameron Bell has filed a motion to alter or amend my order granting 9 summary judgment against him and closing this case.1 When more than a month had passed 10 without a decision on that motion, Bell moved for a status hearing and for the court to provide 11 him with copies of two of his filings, ECF Nos. 67 & 80.2 12 The court is well aware of Bell’s pending motion to alter or amend, but his is among 13 approximately 300 other motions pending in civil cases before this judge. It is unlikely that the 14 court will issue a ruling on that pending motion for many months. Because this court does not 15 find that a status check is necessary, Bell’s request for one is denied. The court will provide Bell 16 notice of any action it takes in his case, and it will send Bell a copy of its decision on his motion 17 to alter or amend as soon as that decision is entered. Until then, however, Bell is advised that 18 motions for status checks just to get an update on his case only further delay the court’s ability to 19 get to the merits of his pending motion. 20 The court also denies Bell’s request for copies of documents. An inmate has no 21 constitutional right to free photocopying. This is true even for indigent plaintiffs proceeding in 22

23 1 ECF No. 80. 2 ECF Nos. 83, 84. 1}| forma pauperis because the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not authorize the 2|| Court to pay the costs for an indigent litigant’s copy requests.? 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Bell’s motion for a status check [ECF No. 83] is 4! DENIED; 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bell’s request for copies of documents [ECF No. 84] also DENIED. 7 Dated: June 15, 2020

U.S. District Judge Jenni ce AL Dorsey 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3 Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1991).