(PC) Hoch v. Clendenin

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORY HOCH, 1:23-cv-00796-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR FILE-STAMPED COPY OF 13 v. ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

14 STEPHANIE CLENDENIN, et al., (Doc. 6)

15 Defendants. ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMONSES AND SERVICE OF 16 PROCESS BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL 17 (Doc. 7) 18 19 20 Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff initiated this action with the filing of his complaint on May 24, 2023. (Doc. 1) 24 The Court issued its Order Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) on May 25 31, 2023. (Doc. 3.) 26 On June 7, 2023, the Court issued its First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee 27 Civil Rights Case. (Doc. 4.) 28 // 1 On August 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed documents titled “Motion for Request for File- 2 Stamped Copy of Original Petition” (Doc. 6) and “Motion for Request for Summons and Service 3 of Summons By United States Marshal’s” (Doc. 7). 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 A. File-Stamped Copy Request 6 Plaintiff asks the Court for a copy of his “original petition” after he inadvertently 7 neglected to include a postage paid envelope for the return of a file-stamped copy at the time of 8 filing. (Doc. 6.) Although Plaintiff requests a copy of the “original petition,” he is referring to his 9 original complaint. Neither Plaintiff's pro se status nor his IFP status entitle him to receive 10 complimentary copies. See, e.g., Blair v. CDCR, No. 1:14-cv-01156-LJO-SAB (PC), 2018 WL 11 1959532, at *6 n.2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2018) (“’In forma pauperis status does not entitle a 12 prisoner to free copies of documents from the existing Court record’”). (See also Doc. 4 at 3 13 [“The Court will not make copies of filed documents or provide postage or envelopes for free 14 even for parties proceeding in forma pauperis”].) 15 Generally, the Clerk’s Office will provide copies for Plaintiff at a cost of $0.50 per page. 16 Under the circumstances, the Court will make a one-time exception and will direct the Clerk’s 17 Office to provide a copy of Plaintiff’s original complaint filed May 24, 2023, to Plaintiff at no 18 charge. Plaintiff is advised that any further copies will need to be paid for by Plaintiff, and that it 19 is his responsibility to maintain copies of all documents submitted to the Court for filing. 20 B. Request for Summons and Service 21 Plaintiff asks the Court “for an Order for the Summons to be sent to Petitioner by the 22 Clerk of the Court,” citing to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a). (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff also 23 requests that service of process be commenced pursuant to Rule 4(c)(3) and (d). (Id.) 24 As Plaintiff was advised in the First Informational Order issued June 7, 2023, his 25 complaint must be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). (See Doc. 4 at 3 [III. 26 SCREENING OF COMPLAINTS].) That order states a “pro se plaintiff may not proceed with 27 legal action against a governmental agency or individual in this Court until the Court screens the 28 pro se plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it states a cognizable claim against named defendants. 1 If the Court does find a cognizable claim and the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the 2 Court will direct the United States Marshal to initiate service of the complaint on defendants.” 3 (Id.) This includes complaints brought by civil detainees. See, e.g., Wilson v. Department of State 4 Hospitals – Coalinga, No. 1:14-cv-00063-RRB, 2016 WL 3648947, *1 (E.D. Cal. July 6, 2016) 5 (citing Williams v. Coleman, 536 Fed. Appx. 694 (9th Cir. 2013)). 6 This Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s complaint. Service of process is premature and 7 will occur only after this Court has determined Plaintiff has stated one or more cognizable claims 8 against a named defendant. This Court is one of the busiest district courts in the nation and the 9 undersigned carries a heavy civil rights caseload. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due 10 course. 11 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 12 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. Plaintiff’s request for a file-stamped copy of his original complaint is GRANTED. 14 The Clerk of the Court will send Plaintiff a copy of the original complaint as a one- 15 time courtesy; and 16 2. Plaintiff’s request for summonses and service of process by the United States Marshal 17 is DENIED as premature. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19

20 Dated: August 24, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21

23 24 25 26 27 28