Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00796/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00796-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORY HOCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEPHANIE CLENDENIN, et al.,

Defendants.

1:23-cv-00796-SKO 

ORDER REGARDING MOTION

FOR FILE-STAMPED COPY OF

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

(Doc. 6)

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR 

SUMMONSES AND SERVICE OF 

PROCESS BY UNITED STATES

MARSHAL

(Doc. 7) 

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action with the filing of his complaint on May 24, 2023. (Doc. 1) 

The Court issued its Order Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) on May

31, 2023. (Doc. 3.) 

On June 7, 2023, the Court issued its First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee 

Civil Rights Case. (Doc. 4.) 

//

Case 1:23-cv-00796-KES-SKO Document 8 Filed 08/25/23 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

On August 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed documents titled “Motion for Request for FileStamped Copy of Original Petition” (Doc. 6) and “Motion for Request for Summons and Service 

of Summons By United States Marshal’s” (Doc. 7). 

II. DISCUSSION

A. File-Stamped Copy Request

Plaintiff asks the Court for a copy of his “original petition” after he inadvertently 

neglected to include a postage paid envelope for the return of a file-stamped copy at the time of 

filing. (Doc. 6.) Although Plaintiff requests a copy of the “original petition,” he is referring to his 

original complaint. Neither Plaintiff's pro se status nor his IFP status entitle him to receive 

complimentary copies. See, e.g., Blair v. CDCR, No. 1:14-cv-01156-LJO-SAB (PC), 2018 WL 

1959532, at *6 n.2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2018) (“’In forma pauperis status does not entitle a 

prisoner to free copies of documents from the existing Court record’”). (See also Doc. 4 at 3 

[“The Court will not make copies of filed documents or provide postage or envelopes for free 

even for parties proceeding in forma pauperis”].) 

Generally, the Clerk’s Office will provide copies for Plaintiff at a cost of $0.50 per page. 

Under the circumstances, the Court will make a one-time exception and will direct the Clerk’s 

Office to provide a copy of Plaintiff’s original complaint filed May 24, 2023, to Plaintiff at no 

charge. Plaintiff is advised that any further copies will need to be paid for by Plaintiff, and that it 

is his responsibility to maintain copies of all documents submitted to the Court for filing. 

B. Request for Summons and Service

Plaintiff asks the Court “for an Order for the Summons to be sent to Petitioner by the 

Clerk of the Court,” citing to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a). (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff also 

requests that service of process be commenced pursuant to Rule 4(c)(3) and (d). (Id.) 

As Plaintiff was advised in the First Informational Order issued June 7, 2023, his 

complaint must be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). (See Doc. 4 at 3 [III. 

SCREENING OF COMPLAINTS].) That order states a “pro se plaintiff may not proceed with 

legal action against a governmental agency or individual in this Court until the Court screens the 

pro se plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it states a cognizable claim against named defendants.

Case 1:23-cv-00796-KES-SKO Document 8 Filed 08/25/23 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

If the Court does find a cognizable claim and the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the 

Court will direct the United States Marshal to initiate service of the complaint on defendants.” 

(Id.) This includes complaints brought by civil detainees. See, e.g., Wilson v. Department of State 

Hospitals – Coalinga, No. 1:14-cv-00063-RRB, 2016 WL 3648947, *1 (E.D. Cal. July 6, 2016)

(citing Williams v. Coleman, 536 Fed. Appx. 694 (9th Cir. 2013)). 

This Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s complaint. Service of process is premature and 

will occur only after this Court has determined Plaintiff has stated one or more cognizable claims 

against a named defendant. This Court is one of the busiest district courts in the nation and the 

undersigned carries a heavy civil rights caseload. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due 

course. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for a file-stamped copy of his original complaint is GRANTED. 

The Clerk of the Court will send Plaintiff a copy of the original complaint as a onetime courtesy; and

2. Plaintiff’s request for summonses and service of process by the United States Marshal 

is DENIED as premature. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00796-KES-SKO Document 8 Filed 08/25/23 Page 3 of 3