Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01302/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01302-10/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICENTE ARRAIGA ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. S. KO, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-1302-CAB-NLS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

EX-PARTE MOTION FOR 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ON 

FILE

[ECF No. 112] 

Before the Court is Plaintiff Vincente Arraiga Alvarez’s (“Plaintiff”) motion 

for record of proceedings on file. (ECF No. 112.) Plaintiff requests that this Court 

order the Clerk to provide Plaintiff with a copy of his response in opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment: ECF No. 91, which totals 189 pages.

1

 

(ECF No. 112 at 1-2.) Plaintiff asserts that this particular filing is necessary to 

prepare an adequate appeal. (Id. at 4.) In support of his motion, Plaintiff cites to 

case law addressing the provision of transcripts for appeals from criminal 

convictions.2 Id.

 

1 Plaintiff requests the exhibits attached to his opposition, which are included in the 

filing. (See ECF No. 91 at 34-186; ECF No. 112 at 2.)

2 March v. Municipal Court for S.F. Judicial Dist., 7 Cal. 3d 422, 427 (1972)

Case 3:16-cv-01302-CAB-NLS Document 113 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.<pageID> 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

27

28

2

The Court notes that it is up to the Plaintiff to keep and maintain his records.

Nonetheless, under the circumstances and because the Plaintiff asks for a single—

albeit lengthy—document, the Court finds it appropriate to provide Plaintiff with a 

copy. Plaintiff is cautioned that there is no right to free photocopying for indigent 

persons and no similar requests will be granted in the future. See Waldron-Ramsey 

v. Manning, 996 F.2d 1230 (9th Cir. 1993) (rejecting “any constitutional right to 

unlimited free photocopying.”). 

The Clerk is DIRECTED to print a copy of ECF No. 91, and enclose it with 

this Order. Due to the length of the document, double-sided printing is both 

acceptable and preferred to conserve court resources. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2018

 

(When “a transcript was essential to [an indigent criminal defendant’s] appeal, it 

had to be provided at state expense.”); Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227 

(1971) (stating “[t]he state must provide an indigent [criminal] defendant with a 

transcript of prior proceedings when that transcript is needed for an effective 

defense or appeal.”); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 19-20 (1956) (holding that “to 

deny adequate review to the poor”—referring to denying free transcripts to indigent 

criminal defendants appealing their convictions—violates the equal protection 

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.). 

Case 3:16-cv-01302-CAB-NLS Document 113 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2