Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00308/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00308-3/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

JON WARREN LARSON, CDCR

#AD-2009

Plaintiff,

15-CV-308 BTM (BGS)

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR

PROPERTY; [ECF No. 74] 

AND 

(2) GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

TRANSCRIPTS [ECF No. 

80.]

vs.

WARDEN D. PARAMO; CMO

WALKER; DR. J. CHAU; DR.

NEWTON; DR. S. ROBERTS; R.N.

GIL; R.N. T. PAULE; R.N. WINZEL;

DR. KRISTEN DEAN,

Defendants.

On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff Jon Warren Larson, a prisoner proceeding pro se

and In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) in this civil rights action, filed: (1) a motion stating

that due to his transfer from the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility to Salinas

Valley State Prison, he has not yet received his property, and requests an order

instructing the warden at Donovan to send his property to his new location [ECF No.

74]; and (2) a motion requesting a copy of every docket entry in this case because

he has not yet received his property following the prison transfer. [ECF No. 80.] 

With respect to Plaintiff’s motion requesting an order instructing a transfer of

his property, the request is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Absent unusual

and compelling circumstances not present here, federal courts generally are

- 1 - 15cv308 BTM (BGS)

Case 3:15-cv-00308-BTM-BGS Document 82 Filed 05/23/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

discouraged from interfering with day-to-day prison administration decisions such as

the timing of property transfers between prisons. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78,

84-86, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987); Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129,

1132 (9th Cir. 1981) (courts should avoid enmeshing themselves in the minutiae of

prison operations). There is no information in Plaintiff’s motion to indicate that the

property will not be transferred to him in due course.

As for Plaintiff’s motion for a copy of all the documents on the Court’s docket

in this case, unless there is a plausible allegation of a violation of his right to access

to the courts, Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101-02 & n.8 (9th Cir. 2011),

“numerous courts have rejected any constitutional right to free and unlimited

photocopying.” Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1990), overrruled on

other grounds by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); see also 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.”); Wanninger v. Davenport, 697

F.2d 992, 994 (11th Cir. 1983); Johnson v. Parke, 642 F.2d 377, 380 (10th Cir.

1981); Harrell v. Keohane, 621 F.2d 1059, 1060-61 (10th Cir. 1980); Reynolds v.

Wagner, 128 F.3d 166, 183 (3d Cir. 1997) (“[T]here is no First Amendment right to

subsidized [legal] mail or photocopying.”). 

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status does not require the court to front the costs

of elective civil litigation, other than to permit the commencement of his suit without

full prepayment of filing fees and to authorize the service of process. See Hadsell v.

Comm’r Internal Revenue Service, 107 F.3d 750, 752 (9th Cir. 1997); Dixon v. Ylst,

990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not waive payment of fees

or expenses for witnesses); Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989)

(per curiam); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 159 (3d Cir. 1993) (court is not

authorized “to commit federal monies for payment of necessary expenses in a civil

suit brought by an indigent litigant.”). 

Moreover, the Court notes that there are no upcoming deadlines in this case

- 2 - 15cv308 BTM (BGS)

Case 3:15-cv-00308-BTM-BGS Document 82 Filed 05/23/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

due to the pending motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution,

the Court shall direct the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with a copy of his

First Amended Complaint, including all exhibits [ECF No. 37]; and a copy of

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. [ECF No.

45.]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 23 2016

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

- 3 - 15cv308 BTM (BGS)

Case 3:15-cv-00308-BTM-BGS Document 82 Filed 05/23/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3