Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01525/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01525-8/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

14-CV-1525 JLS (RBM)

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

RUBEN DARIO GARCIA, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SLEELEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 14-CV-1525 JLS (RBM)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR 

COPIES

(ECF No. 195)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Ruben Dario Garcia, Jr.’s Second Ex Parte 

Application for Copies of Docket Filing Records in the Above Entitle[d] Matter (“Ex Parte 

App.,” ECF No. 195), in which he again requests copies of voluminous court records in 

connection with his current appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, Garcia v. Seeley, No. 19-56128 (9th Cir. filed Sept. 25, 2019) (the “Appeal”).

On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff requested copies of 63 documents totaling 1020 

pages: ECF Nos. 27, 28, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 50, 62, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71, 73, 74, 80, 90, 

105, 106, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 

137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 153, 157, 161, 162, 164, 

167, 168, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, and 179. See ECF No. 191 at 1. On November 6, 

2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s request, ordering the Clerk of 

the Court to send Plaintiff copies of Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro’s 

Case 3:14-cv-01525-JLS-RBM Document 196 Filed 01/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

14-CV-1525 JLS (RBM)

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

May 22, 2019 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 173); the Court’s August 19, 2019 

Order: (1) Overruling Plaintiff’s Objections, (2) Adopting Report and Recommendation, 

and (3) Granting Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 178); and the 

Clerk of the Court’s August 19, 2019 Judgment in a Civil Case (ECF No. 179). See ECF 

No. 192 at 2. The Court denied Plaintiff’s request as to the remaining documents, however,

on the grounds that “Plaintiff’s request is . . . disproportionately burdensome on the Court, 

particularly given that ‘[a]ppellants . . . proceeding without counsel need not file the initial 

excerpts, supplemental excerpts or further excerpts of record.’” Id. (quoting 9th Cir. R. 

30-1.2) (citing Wahl v. Sutton, No. 116CV01576LJOBAMPC, 2019 WL 5536318, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2019)).

On November 19, 2019, Plaintiff requested that the Ninth Circuit provide him with 

copies of the same documents, claiming that he “need[s] to review these filings before 

completing [his] Opening Brief or to present them as Excerpts of Record[] supporting the 

brief.” Appeal D.E. 10 at 1. The Ninth Circuit denied Plaintiff’s request on December 17, 

2019, noting that “[a]ppellant may request the document[s] directly from the district court.” 

Appeal D.E. 11 at 1. The Ninth Circuit added that, “[b]ecause appellant is proceeding 

without counsel, the excerpts of record requirement is waived.” Id. at 2 (citing 9th Cir. R. 

30-1.2).

Plaintiff now requests copies of 50 documents comprising 768 pages: ECF Nos. 29, 

41, 42, 43, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71, 73, 74, 105, 106, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 

125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 

150, 151, 157, 161, 164, 167, 168, 174, 175, 176, and 177. See Ex Parte App. at 2. Plaintiff 

claims that “he needs to be provided by the[] U.S.D.C. copies of the . . . docket records 

because ‘he needs to review them prior to completing his Opening Brief’” because “without 

these records he won’t be able to properly prosecute his case against named defendant on 

appeal . . . because he won’t be able to examine and consider these filing[s] prior to 

completing his Opening Brief ‘denying him a fair hearing.’” Id. 

/ / /

Case 3:14-cv-01525-JLS-RBM Document 196 Filed 01/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

14-CV-1525 JLS (RBM)

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

As the Court previously explained, see ECF No. 192 at 2, “[w]hile ‘prisoners have 

a constitutional right of access to the courts,’ . . . there is no constitutional right to receive 

photocopies free of charge.” Myers v. Paramo, No. 18CV2239-DMS(BLM), 2019 WL 

1982218, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 3, 2019) (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 

(1977)) (citing Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1990), overruled on other 

grounds by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996)). “The rule prohibiting free 

photocopies is the same for plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis.” Id. (collecting cases) 

(citing Hadsell v. Comm’r Internal Revenue Serv., 107 F.3d 750, 752 (9th Cir. 1997);

Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993); Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211–12 

(9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam)); accord Eusse v. Vitela, No. 3:13-CV-00916-BEN, 2015 WL 

4641870, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2015) (“In forma pauperis status does not entitle a 

prisoner to free copies of documents from the existing Court record.”) (quoting Armstead 

v. United States, No. C11-1352, 2012 WL 380280, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 6, 2012)).

“Here, given the breadth of the request, the lack of statutory authorization for such 

an expense, and Plaintiff’s failure to establish a specific need related to the instant case

. . . , the Court declines to authorize the requested production of documents.” See Myers, 

2019 WL 1982218, at *3. The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application. Plaintiff MAY FILE a renewed motion if he can 

articulate a specific need for particular documents to prepare his Opening Brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2020

Case 3:14-cv-01525-JLS-RBM Document 196 Filed 01/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3