Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01019/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01019-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Plaintiff indicates that he is now confined in the Anchorage Correctional Complex

West in Anchorage, Alaska. (Doc. 8.)

SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Owen Walter Keiper, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Washington State Trial Judges, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1019-PHX-DGC (MEA)

ORDER

On May 11, 2009, Plaintiff Owen Walter Keiper, an Alaskan inmate then-confined

in the Red Rock Correctional Center, a Corrections Corporation of America facility in Eloy,

Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with 60 pages of

exhibits.1

 (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for emergency consideration. (Doc. 3.) In

an Order filed on May 28, 2009, the Court denied the motion for emergency consideration

and dismissed this action without prejudice pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,

489 (1994). (Doc. 4.) Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 5.) Court records reflect

that copies of the May 28, 2009 Order and Judgment were mailed to Plaintiff at his address

of record and were not returned. 

On April 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed Without Payment of Fees

and Affidavit and a motion requesting copies of filings in this matter. (Doc. 6 & 8.) The

Court will deny both motions. 

Case 2:09-cv-01019-DGC--MEA Document 9 Filed 05/08/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application will be denied because this action has been

closed for nearly three years. Plaintiff’s motion for copies will be denied because an inmate

has no right to free copies of pleadings. See In Re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir.

1990) (per curiam) (28 U.S.C. § 1915 “does not give a litigant a right to have documents

copied and returned to him at government expense”); Robinson v. Miscellaneous, No.

09C0148, 2009 WL 1649697, at *4 (E.D. Wis. June 11, 2009); Joseph v. Director of Circle

K Corp., No. CV97-2214-PHX-RCB, 2008 WL 4838712, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 5, 2008).

Further, the Ninth Circuit has rejected any constitutional right to unlimited free

photocopying. See Johnson v. Moore, 926 F.2d 921, 923 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam),

superceded on other grounds, 948 F.2d 517 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam); and Sands v. Lewis,

886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1989) (rejecting any constitutional right to free and unlimited

photocopying) (citing Jones v. Franzen, 697 F.2d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 1983) (“[B]road as the

constitutional concept of liberty is, it does not include the right to xerox.”)). 

“The Supreme Court has declared that ‘the expenditure of public funds [on behalf of

an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress . . . .’” Tedder v. Odel, 890

F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321

(1976)). The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, authorizes the Court to pay for

service of process on behalf of an indigent litigant and, in certain cases, to pay the costs of

printing the record on appeal and preparing a transcript of proceedings, but the statute does

not authorize the Court to pay the costs for an indigent litigant’s general copy requests. Cf.

Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (section 1915 does not authorize the district

courts to waive payment of fees or expenses for witnesses); Tedder, 890 F.2d at 211-12

(same). 

The Clerk of Court charges 50 cents per page for reproducing any record or paper.

See Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees ¶ 4, foll. 28 U.S.C. § 1914. Plaintiff may obtain

copies of documents filed in this case by submitting a written request accompanied by

payment of the 50 cents per page copy fee.

Case 2:09-cv-01019-DGC--MEA Document 9 Filed 05/08/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s post-judgment in forma pauperis application is denied. (Doc. 6.)

(2) Plaintiff’s motion for copies of this action is denied. (Doc. 8.) 

DATED this 8th day of May, 2012.

Case 2:09-cv-01019-DGC--MEA Document 9 Filed 05/08/12 Page 3 of 3