Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00508/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00508-2/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL DUNSMORE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 14cv508-LAB (JMA)

ORDER DENYING AMENDED

MOTION FOR COPIES OF THE

RECORD

vs.

PARAMO, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Darryl Dunsmore, a prisoner in state custody, filed his complaint on March 5,

2014, along with three motions, including one motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The

following month, he was denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis and his complaint was

dismissed. Since that time, Dunsmore has pursued a number of unsuccessful motions and

appeals.

Dunsmore filed a motion, styled "Motion for the Record," requesting that he be sent

a copy of every document filed in the docket, without charge. He identified no provision in

federal law, nor was the Court aware of one, that entitled him to free copies of all documents

in the record under these circumstances. The only reason he gave for his request is that he

was pursuing a civil rights action in state court and had been awarded a fee waiver there.

The Court denied that motion.

/ / /

- 1 - 14cv508

Case 3:14-cv-00508-LAB-JMA Document 55 Filed 11/19/15 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

Dunsmore has now filed an amended motion saying essentially the same thing his

original motion said. The amended motion argues that he really needs the documents so he

can win his case in state court. It chides the Court for, in his opinion, wrongly dismissing his

complaint. And it attaches some documents showing that he is not required to pay certain

fees in connection with his state court case. Those documents do not purport to entitle him

to free documents from this Court. 

As before, Dunsmore does not explain why he is entitled to free copies of every

document in the docket, and the Court is unaware of any provision of law entitling him to

them. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (providing that, in circumstances not present here, an indigent

party may be entitled to transcripts free of charge); Dunsmore v. Beard, 2014 WL 7205659,

*3–4 (S.D. Cal., Dec. 17, 2014) (denying Dunsmore free copies of lodgments and

transcripts). This is particularly true here, where Dunsmore was not proceeding in forma

pauperis, and where he already received a free copy of all orders issued during the course

of litigation. Furthermore, Dunsmore's case was dismissed on April 23, 2014, and the activity

since then has consisted of Dunsmore's own frivolous requests and untimely appeals. It is

completely unclear how any of these would be helpful, much less necessary in litigating his

state court civil rights action.

The motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 18, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 14cv508

Case 3:14-cv-00508-LAB-JMA Document 55 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 2