Chelberg v. FBOP Director

S.D. California

Chelberg v. FBOP Director

DecidedSeptember 19, 2019

Docket3:19-cv-00748

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Chelberg v. FBOP Director, (S.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Civ. Case No. 3:19-cv-0748-BTM TRAVIS CHELBERG, Crim. Case No. 3:09-cr-0365-BTM 13 Petitioner, 14 ORDER GRANTING REQUEST v. FOR COPY OF DOCKET AND 15 DENYING REQUEST FOR OTHER 16 FBOP DIRECTOR, COURT DOCUMENTS WITHOUT PREPAYMENT 17 Respondent.

18 [Civ. Case, ECF No. 28] 19 Before the Court is Petitioner Travis Chelberg’s pro se motion seeking copies 20 of the docket for Case No. 3:19-cv-0748-BTM-RBB and the Local Rules of Practice 21 for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the “Local 22 Rules”). (Civ. Case, ECF No. 28.) Petitioner argues he is entitled to copies of 23 such documents without (pre)payment because he is purportedly indigent. (Id. at 24 3.) Yet Petitioner does not explain why his indigency entitles him to free copies of 25 Court documents.1 See Porter v. Dep't of Treasury, 564 F.3d 176, 180 n.3 (3d Cir. 26 27 28 1 1 ||2009) (“[T]he granting of [in forma pauperis] status exempts litigants from filing 2 ||fees only. It does not exempt litigants from the costs of copying and filing 3 ||documents; service of documents other than the complaint; costs; expert witness 4 fees; or sanctions.” (internal citations omitted)). Further, he has not demonstrated 5 he does not have access to the Local Rules, which are available electronically 6 || at https:/Awww.casd.uscourts.gov/rules/local-rules.aspx. 7 Upon the foregoing and due consideration, Petitioner’s motion (Civ. Case, 8 || ECF No. 28) is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The Clerk is directed to 9 ||send Petitioner a copy of the docket in Case No. 3:19-cv-748-BTM at no expense. 10 ||Except as otherwise provided by law, Petitioner must prepay for any other copies 11 desires. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 || Dated: September 19, 2019 ) 15 au led. Mahou 16 Hono ble Barry Ted Mosk¢witz United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 eat relates solely to transcripts of Court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. §

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Civ. Case No. 3:19-cv-0748-BTM TRAVIS CHELBERG, Crim. Case No. 3:09-cr-0365-BTM 13 Petitioner, 14 ORDER GRANTING REQUEST v. FOR COPY OF DOCKET AND 15 DENYING REQUEST FOR OTHER 16 FBOP DIRECTOR, COURT DOCUMENTS WITHOUT PREPAYMENT 17 Respondent.

18 [Civ. Case, ECF No. 28] 19 Before the Court is Petitioner Travis Chelberg’s pro se motion seeking copies 20 of the docket for Case No. 3:19-cv-0748-BTM-RBB and the Local Rules of Practice 21 for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the “Local 22 Rules”). (Civ. Case, ECF No. 28.) Petitioner argues he is entitled to copies of 23 such documents without (pre)payment because he is purportedly indigent. (Id. at 24 3.) Yet Petitioner does not explain why his indigency entitles him to free copies of 25 Court documents.1 See Porter v. Dep't of Treasury, 564 F.3d 176, 180 n.3 (3d Cir. 26 27 28 1 1 ||2009) (“[T]he granting of [in forma pauperis] status exempts litigants from filing 2 ||fees only. It does not exempt litigants from the costs of copying and filing 3 ||documents; service of documents other than the complaint; costs; expert witness 4 fees; or sanctions.” (internal citations omitted)). Further, he has not demonstrated 5 he does not have access to the Local Rules, which are available electronically 6 || at https:/Awww.casd.uscourts.gov/rules/local-rules.aspx. 7 Upon the foregoing and due consideration, Petitioner’s motion (Civ. Case, 8 || ECF No. 28) is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The Clerk is directed to 9 ||send Petitioner a copy of the docket in Case No. 3:19-cv-748-BTM at no expense. 10 ||Except as otherwise provided by law, Petitioner must prepay for any other copies 11 desires. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 || Dated: September 19, 2019 ) 15 au led. Mahou 16 Hono ble Barry Ted Mosk¢witz United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 eat relates solely to transcripts of Court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. §

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Chelberg v. FBOP Director, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chelberg-v-fbop-director-casd-2019.