Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00312/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00312-16/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Hussein Ali Kietty is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for a copy of the exhibits previously filed with the 

Court in support of his opposition to Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order and motion 

for summary judgment. (ECF No. 69.) 

Plaintiff is advised that the Court does not ordinarily provide free copies of case documents to 

parties. The Clerk of Court charges $.50 per page for copies of documents. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 

Copies of up to twenty pages may be made by the Clerk Office at this Court upon written request and 

prepayment of the copy fees. The fact that the Court has granted leave for Plaintiff to proceed in 

forma pauperis does not entitle him to free copies of documents from the Court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 

2250, the Clerk is not required to furnish copies without costs to an indigent plaintiff except by order 

of the judge. Furthermore, there are numerous exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s opposition, including 

HUSSEIN ALI KIETTY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

A. WALKER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00312-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

COPY AND/OR RETURN OF EXHIBITS 

PREVIOUSLY FILED WITH THE COURT

[ECF No. 69]

Case 1:13-cv-00312-SAB Document 70 Filed 07/07/16 Page 1 of 2
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

several court orders, and Plaintiff does not reference which “exhibits” he seeks to obtain a copy of and 

the Court cannot discern from the conclusory nature of Plaintiff’s motion which specific exhibits he is 

requesting. Nor does Plaintiff indicate the reason why he is in need of a copy of such exhibits. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a copy of legal documents is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00312-SAB Document 70 Filed 07/07/16 Page 2 of 2