Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01463/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01463-2/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

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Mitchell,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1463-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

 

The petitioner’s habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, was

denied and dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Court’s Order (Doc. 45) and

Judgment (Doc. 46), both of which were entered on August 30, 2010; no appeal

was filed. Pending before the Court is the petitioner’s Request for Production of

Documents and for Service Upon Respondents (Doc. 47), which was signed on

August 30, 2010 and filed on September 1, 2010.

In his Request for Production of Documents, the petitioner requests that

the Court provide him with a copy of two of his own filed documents: his Motion

for Leave to File Delayed Objections to Magistrate’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 40) and his Objections to Magistrate’s Report and

Recommendations (Doc. 44). The Court will deny this motion because the

petitioner has no constitutional right to have the Court provide him with free

Case 2:08-cv-01463-PGR Document 48 Filed 10/06/10 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

- 2 -

photocopies, cf. Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir.1990) (Court noted

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

photocopying” by prisoners), his in forma pauperis status does not entitle him to

free copies of documents in the Court’s file, see e.g., In re Richard, 914 F.2d

1526, 1527 (6th Cir.1990) ( Court concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the in forma

pauperis statute, “does not give the [prisoner] litigant a right to have documents

copies and returned to him at government expense”), and he has not sufficiently

demonstrated any need for the copies given the current procedural posture of the

case. If the petitioner wishes to have copies of these documents provided to him

at his expense, he may contact the Clerk of the Court to determine what the

photocopying-related costs would be under the District Court Miscellaneous Fee

Schedule.

In his Request for Service Upon Respondents, the petitioner requests that

the Court provide the respondents with copies of his Motion for Leave to File

Delayed Objections to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 40) and

his Objections to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 44). The

Court will deny this motion as moot because the record establishes that the Clerk

of the Court electronically mailed copies of both documents to the respondents on

August 17, 2010. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s Request for Production of Documents

and for Service Upon Respondents (Doc. 47) is denied.

DATED this 6th day of October, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01463-PGR Document 48 Filed 10/06/10 Page 2 of 2