Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00692/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00692-0/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 

JDDL 

WO KM 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Carl David Fulton, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

John Doe, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 12-692-PHX-GMS (MHB) 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Carl David Fulton, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexYuma, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a May 15, 2012 Order, the Court granted 

the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint and this action for failure to state 

a claim. 

On June 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. On June 20, 2012, the Ninth Circuit ordered Plaintiff to pay the appellate filing 

fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis, which the Ninth Circuit denied on August 7, 2012. On August 30, 2012, 

the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for failure to prosecute. 

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s July 2, 2012 Motion for Conformed 

Copies (Doc. 14); “Motion for Billing and/or Court Fees” (Doc. 17); “Motion for 

Transcripts and All Related Information” (Doc. 18); Motion for Reconsideration 

(Doc. 19); and “Motion for Conformed Copies” (Doc. 20). 

Case 2:12-cv-00692-GMS--MHB Document 21 Filed 03/15/13 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

JDDL 

I. Motions for Copies or Transcripts 

The Court first notes that no hearings were conducted in this case and therefore 

there are no transcripts. To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking copies of documents and 

orders filed in this case, 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. 

An inmate has no right to free copies of pleadings. See In Re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 

127 (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”). Further, the Ninth 

Circuit has rejected any constitutional right to unlimited free photocopying. See Johnson 

v. Moore, 936 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 Court will therefore 

deny Plaintiff’s Motions for copies (Docs. 14, 18, and 20). 

II. Motion Requesting Billing and/or Court Fees 

 Plaintiff asks that the Court reduce or waive the filing fee for this case, or 

alternatively, suspend collection of the fee for 360 days. 

 Title 28 U.S.C. '1915(b)(1) states: 

[I]f a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma 

pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount 

of a filing fee. The court shall assess and, when funds exist, 

collect, as a partial payment of any court fees required by law, 

an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater ofB

 (A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner's 

account; or 

 (B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner's 

account for the 6Bmonthly period immediately proceeding the 

filing of the complaint or notice of appeal. 

Case 2:12-cv-00692-GMS--MHB Document 21 Filed 03/15/13 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

JDDL 

 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not provide any authority or mechanism for the Court 

to reduce or waive the payment of Plaintiff=s filing fee, or to suspend collection of the 

filing fee. 

 It is clear that in amending 28 U.S.C. § 1915 with the enactment of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26, 1996) 

(PLRA), Congress intended to provide financial disincentives for prisoners filing lawsuits 

in forma pauperis. See Lyon v. Krol, 127 F.3d 763, 764 (8th Cir.1997) (“Congress 

enacted PLRA with the principal purpose of deterring frivolous prisoner litigation by 

instituting economic costs for prisoners wishing to file civil claims. See, e.g., H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 104-378, at 166-67 (1995); 141 Cong. Rec. S14626 (daily ed.) (Sept. 29, 1995) 

(statement of Sen. Dole)”). 

 The decision to file and prosecute this case was made by Plaintiff before he filed 

this case. Having filed this case, Plaintiff and the Court are both statutorily limited by the 

strictures of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s “Motion 

Requesting Billing and/or Court Fees.” 

III. Motion for Reconsideration 

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for 

reconsideration is appropriate where the district court “(1) is presented with newly 

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, 

Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions 

should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had 

already thought through – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 

1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 

(E.D. Va. 1983)). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or 

present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in 

the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Case 2:12-cv-00692-GMS--MHB Document 21 Filed 03/15/13 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

JDDL 

Nor may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of 

or in opposition to a motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 

F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an 

insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 

1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). 

 Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider dismissal of this action, but provides no 

reason for the Court to do so. Despite Plaintiff’s lack of argument, the Court has 

reviewed the original Complaint and Order of dismissal. The Court finds no basis to 

reconsider its decision. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. 

 IT IS ORDERED:

 (1) Plaintiff’s July 2, 2012 Motion for Conformed Copies (Doc. 14) is denied. 

 (2) Plaintiff’s December 26, 2012 Motion for Billing and/or Court Fees 

(Doc. 17) is denied. 

 (3) Plaintiff’s December 26, 2012 Motion for Transcripts and All Related 

Information (Doc. 18) is denied. 

 (4) Plaintiffs December 26, 2012 Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 19) is 

denied. 

 (5) Plaintiff’s December 26, 2012 Motion for Conformed Copies (Doc. 20) is 

denied. 

 Dated this 15th day of March, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-00692-GMS--MHB Document 21 Filed 03/15/13 Page 4 of 4