UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA James Paul Aery, Civ. No. 21-2375 (KMM/BRT) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Joshua Arhart, Defendant. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff James Paul Aery’s motion for an emergency injunction filed on July 18, 2022.1 (Doc. No. 39.) Plaintiff asks the Court to “arrange for sufficient resources” to cover the costs of his litigation, including phone calls and envelopes. (Id.) While the Court has granted Plaintiff permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), “nothing in the IFP statute requires the Court to pay a party’s discovery costs.” Janetta v. Minnesota Dep’t of Hum. Servs., No. 19-CV-2622 (ECT/TNL), 2020 WL 4593816, at *1 (D. Minn. Aug. 11, 2020); see also Lightfeather v. Osborn, No. 4:20CV3118, 2021 WL 107141, at *3 (D. Neb. Jan. 12, 2021) (“[T]he statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis does not include the right to receive funds from the court to pay discovery or other costs relating to a pro se litigant’s case.”); Haymes v. Smith, 73 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed this exact motion in several other of his cases pending in this district. See Aery v. Lewis, No. 22-CV-12 (KMM/BRT) (D. Minn. July 18, 2022) (Doc. No. 31); Aery v. Unknown Actors in the Employ of Beltrami County Jail, No. 21-CV-2422 (PJS/JFD) (D. Minn. July 18, 2022) (Doc. No. 33); Aery v. Beitel, No. 22-CV-114 (KMM/TNL) (D. Minn. July 18, 2022) (Doc. No. 16); Aery v. Nohre, No. 22-CV-491 (PJS/TNL) (D. Minn. July 18, 2022) (Doc. No. 30). F.R.D. 572, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 1976) (“The generally recognized rule is that a court may not authorize the commitment of federal funds to underwrite the necessary expenditures of an indigent civil litigant’s action.”) (citing Tyler v. Lark, 472 F.2d 1077 (8th Cir. 1973)). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s injunctive request that the Court finance the costs of his litigation is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 20, 2022 s/ Becky R. Thorson BECKY R. THORSON United States Magistrate Judge