Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02569/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02569-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RODNEY DIAL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SCOTT HEATLEY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-2569 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed with this action in forma pauperis 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

On June 20, 2014, plaintiff filed a request for court-appointed paralegal services. ECF 

No. 41. Plaintiff asserts that Pamela Dial “is a documented paralegal” and that her services will 

provide plaintiff with professional assistance in discovery and with witness testimony at no cost 

to the State of California. Id. Plaintiff asks for an order authorizing Ms. Dial to visit him at the 

prison as a paralegal and deliver legal documents on his behalf. Id. 

 Costs to the state are not at issue in this federal civil rights action in which plaintiff 

proceeds in forma pauperis under a federal statute. 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 

(9th Cir. 1989). The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds 

for paralegal services. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Case 2:12-cv-02569-AC Document 43 Filed 07/08/14 Page 1 of 2
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

Ms. Dial may visit plaintiff in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the 

prison; however, plaintiff’s request for appointment of Pamela Dial to perform paralegal services 

on behalf of plaintiff will be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for appointment of 

paralegal services (ECF No. 41) is denied. 

DATED: July 8, 2014 

Case 2:12-cv-02569-AC Document 43 Filed 07/08/14 Page 2 of 2