Ramsey v. Thompson

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL C. RAMSEY, Case No.: 23-cv-1920-JAH-DDL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO RECEIVE COPIES 14 N. THOMPSON, OF DOCUMENTS 15 Defendant.

16 [Dkt. Nos. 61] 17

18 On July 15, 2025, the Court received Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to 19 Receive Copies of Documents. Dkt. No. 61. The motion was entered into the 20 docket on July 16, 2025. See Docket. 21 Plaintiff, a prisoner housed in High Desert State Prison, who is proceeding 22 pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks an order requiring Defendant to provide legal 23 copies of the pleadings in this matter in a timely fashion. Dkt. No. 61. Alternatively, 24 Plaintiff requests that the Court order the Clerk of Court to provide copies. Id. at 25 2. In support, Plaintiff states that without such an order, he will be highly 26 disadvantaged because he is a bedridden prisoner and dependent on CDCR 27 employees to assist him with legal copies and mailings. Id. at 2, 5. In addition, the 28 facility where Plaintiff is housed does not have a functioning copy machine. Id. 1 The only machine available is outdated and has been broken for several months. 2 Id. Plaintiff has submitted a grievance regarding the copy machine, however, that 3 may take several months to resolve, and he needs copies of the pleadings in his 4 case now. Id. at 6. 5 “While ‘prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts,’ there is 6 no constitutional right to receive photocopies free of charge.” Arellano v. Blahnik, 7 2020 WL 6319130, at *1 (S.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2020, No. 16CV2412-CAB-MSB) 8 (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977)) and (citing Sands v. Lewis, 9 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Lewis v. 10 Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) and Jones v. Franzen, 697 F.2d 801, 803 (7th 11 Cir. 1983) (“[B]road as the constitutional concept of liberty is, it does not include 12 the right to xerox.”)). This is no different for litigants proceeding in forma pauperis. 13 Id. (citing In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990)). 14 While the Court does not generally provide parties with copies of the 15 pleadings, given the circumstances in the instant matter, the Court finds it 16 appropriate to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the recent motions he has filed as 17 requested.1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The Clerk’s Office is 18 ORDERED to mail Plaintiff a copy of this order along with a copy of Dkt. Nos. 47, 19 50-52, 57, and 60-63. Plaintiff is cautioned that the Court is not ordering Defendant 20 or the Clerk’s Office to provide Plaintiff with copies of every pleading that he files 21 in this matter in the future. If Plaintiff should need copies of any court documents 22 23 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff should have a copy of the Court’s orders as the 24 Clerk’s Office mails orders to case participants who are not on the Case 25 Management/Electronic Case Filing System. See Docket. Plaintiff will continue to receive the Court’s orders throughout the duration of the case. Additionally, a 26 review of the docket suggests that Plaintiff should have copies of the pleadings 27 filed by Defendant in this case. See Dkt. Nos. 48-2, 54-2, 56-1 (Certificates of Service stating that copies of Defendant’s pleadings have been mailed to Plaintiff 28 1 the Clerk of the Court, they may be purchased at $0.50 per page. 2 llIT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: July 24, 2025 eae ‘ Theil □□□ 4 ‘Hon. DavidD.Leshner □□□ 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28