(PC) Rodriguez v. United States of America ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, ) Case No. 1:19-cv-00001-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 13 v. ) FOR COPY OF TENTATIVE PRETRIAL ORDER AND ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT ) 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CONFERENCE ) 15 Defendant. ) (ECF No. 72) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Angel Rodriguez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674. 19 This case is set for a bench trial before District Judge Dale A. Drozd on August 2, 2022. The 20 case is also set for settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on June 7, 21 2022, at 1:30 p.m. 22 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the tentative pretrial order and 23 order setting the settlement conference, filed May 16, 2022. Plaintiff contends that due to his recent 24 transfer he has not yet received his legal property in order to timely comply with any deadlines. 25 Plaintiff is advised that “prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts,” Bounds 26 v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977), there is no constitutional right to receive photocopies free of 27 charge. Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Lewis v. 28 Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); see also Jones v. Franzen, 697 F.2d 801, 803 (7th 1 || Cir. 1983) (“[B]road as the constitutional concept of liberty is, it does not include the right to 2 || xerox.”); Wanninger v. Davenport, 697 F.2d 992, 994 (11th Cir. 1983) (finding no violation of 3 || “appellant's constitutional rights when [prison officials] refused to provide him with free 4 || photocopies....”); Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166, 183 (3d Cir. 1997) ( [T]here is no First 5 || Amendment right to subsidized [legal] mail or photocopying.”). 6 The rule prohibiting free photocopies is the same for plaintiffs proceeding in forma 7 || pauperis. See In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990) (Title 28 U.S.C. section 8 || 1915 “waives only ‘prepayment of fees and costs and security ...” [but] does not give the litigant a 9 || right to have documents copied and returned to him at government expense.”); Hadsell v. Comm'r 10 || Internal Revenue Service, 107 F.3d 750, 752 (9th Cir. 1997); Dixon v. YIst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th 11 || Cir. 1993) (explaining that title 28 U.S.C. section 1915—governing proceedings in forma pauperis— 12 || does not waive the payment of fees or expenses required for an indigent's witnesses); Tedder v. Odel. 13 || 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 14 || 317, 321 (1976) (holding that “the expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is 15 || proper only when authorized by Congress,” and that 28 U.S.C. section 1915 does not provide such 16 || authorization); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 159 (3d Cir. 1993) (courts are not authorized “to commt 17 || federal monies for payment of necessary expenses in a civil suit brought by an indigent litigant.”’) 18 While Plaintiff is not entitled to free copies of his legal filings, in the interests of moving this 19 || case forward and assisting Plaintiff in preparing for the upcoming settlement conference and bench 20 || trial, the Court will make a one-time exception and send an additional copy of the tentative pretrial 21 || order (ECF No. 67) and order setting the settlement conference (ECF No. 68). 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. A (Fe 24 ll Dated: _ May 18, 2022 OF 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28