Lindblad v. Walgreens Corporations

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 18, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-07507
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT LINDBLAD, Case No. 21-cv-07507-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 9 v. EXPERT FEES AND LAB WORK COSTS 10 WALGREENS CORPORATIONS, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 9 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff Robert Lindblad, who has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, brings 14 this case against Defendants Walgreens Corporations, Starbucks Coffee, and Arapahoe County 15 Government, alleging a conspiracy exists to deprive him of his civil rights. On October 18, 2021, 16 he filed a request that the Court “pay costs for lab work to further entrench the conviction of the 17 plaintiff, that there is the illegal poisonous substance strychnine in the cotton-balls and the 18 Starbucks Coffee the plaintiff has possession of as proof of the allegations.” ECF No. 9. Lindblad 19 also requests the Court pay for “an expert sustain strengthened standing to sue.” 20 “[T]he expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when 21 authorized by Congress.” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (alterations 22 omitted) (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976)). Although 28 U.S.C. § 23 1915 allows the court to waive prepayment of fees and costs for in forma pauperis litigants, 24 “[t]here is no provision in the statute for the payment by the government of the costs of deposition 25 transcripts, or any other litigation expenses, and no other statute authorizes courts to commit 26 federal monies for payment of the necessary expenses in a civil suit brought by an indigent 27 litigant.” Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 159 (3d Cir. 1993); see also Porter v. Dep’t of Treasury, 1 from filing fees only. It does not exempt litigants from the costs of copying and filing documents; 2 || service of documents other than the complaint; costs; expert witness fees; or sanctions.” (internal 3 || citations omitted)); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The magistrate judge 4 correctly ruled that 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the in forma pauperis statute, does not waive payment of 5 || fees or expenses for witnesses.”’); In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990) (“[Section 6 1915] does not give the litigant a right to have documents copied and returned to him at 7 government expense.”’). 8 As it is not authorized to subsidize the costs of his suit, the Court finds Lindblad is 9 || responsible for his own litigation expenses. The Court therefore DENIES Lindblad’s motion. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: October 18, 2021 13 AL. joy □ 4 THOMAS S. HIXSON United States Magistrate Judge

2 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28