Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00134/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00134-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1), Petitioner has 

consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge 

to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry 

of final judgment, by manifesting consent in writing signed by the 

Petitioner on February 8 and 13, 2013. Respondent has not yet 

appeared in the action or answered the petition. 

Pending before the Court are two motions filed by Petitioner on 

May 10, 2013, in which Petitioner requests copies of a document 

previously filed in this action, namely, Petitioner’s response to an 

DANIEL URIOSTEGUI,

 Petitioner,

v.

F. FOULK,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00134-SKO-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS 

FOR COPIES (DOCS. 11 & 12)

Case 1:13-cv-00134-LJO-SKO Document 18 Filed 07/05/13 Page 1 of 2
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

order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for 

Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies which had 

issued from this Court on February 22, 2013. 

Petitioner’s response to the order to show cause was filed on 

March 22, 2013, and the Court subsequently discharged the order to 

show cause on May 21, 2013, and directed the Respondent to file a 

response to the petition.

Petitioner states that at the time he mailed his “motion to 

show cause,” which the Court understands to be a reference to his 

response to the order to show cause, he could not afford to mail an 

additional copy and self-addressed stamped envelope for the Court to 

stamp as received and to return to Petitioner for his file. He 

states that he is now sending to the Court a face page of the motion 

for the Court to stamp. However, no face page appears to have been 

forwarded. Petitioner is thus asking for the Court to send to 

Petitioner a copy of the file-stamped motion or face page free of 

charge. 

The Court does not provide free copies of documents to the 

parties, although the Clerk’s Office will copy documents up to 

twenty pages in length at a charge of $.50 per page. Accordingly, 

Petitioner’s motions for copies of his response to the order to show 

cause are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

ie14hje

Case 1:13-cv-00134-LJO-SKO Document 18 Filed 07/05/13 Page 2 of 2