Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01496/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01496-6/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

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

RONALD F. MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. PARKS, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01496-ADA-BAK (SAB) (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RELIEF FROM A COURT ORDER 

PURSUANT TO RULE 60

(Doc. No. 22)

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S ORDERS DENYING LEAVE TO 

EXCEED 25-PAGE LIMIT AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR A COPY OF THE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. No. 23)

Plaintiff Ronald F. Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a 

motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, seeking relief from an order denying Plaintiff 

leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”) exceeding twenty-five pages and denying 

Plaintiff’s request for a copy of his lodged FAC. (Doc. No. 22.) On the same day, Plaintiff filed 

objections to the order, raising the same arguments. (Doc. No. 23.)

On December 8, 2021, the court entered an order granting Plaintiff’s motions for copies 

of the complaint and motions he had filed previously, based on his inability to access the law 

Case 1:21-cv-01496-KES-CDB Document 31 Filed 09/16/22 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

2

library to make copies. (Doc. No. 13.) The court advised: “This is a one-time allowance, and 

the Court will not again provide copies without the plaintiff prepaying the cost. He is urged to 

obtain copies of his documents before filing if he wishes to have them.” (Doc. No. 13.) 

On January 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint. (Doc. No. 16.) 

The court granted the motion and ordered Plaintiff to limit the pleading to twenty-five pages. 

(Doc. No. 17.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to exceed the twenty-five-page limit 

and lodged a 109-page FAC. (Doc. Nos. 19, 20.) Plaintiff also requested a copy of his lodged 

FAC. (Doc. No. 18.) On April 5, 2022, the court denied Plaintiff’s leave to exceed the 25-page 

limit and, quoting the court’s prior order (Doc. No. 13), denied Plaintiff’s request for a copy of 

his lodged FAC. (Doc. No. 21.) 

In response, Plaintiff filed the instant motion under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

Rule 60(b)(6), seeking relief from the court’s order of April 5, 2022, for “any other reason that 

justifies relief.” (Doc. No. 22.) At the same time, Plaintiff filed objections to the order. (Doc. 

No. 23.) After filing these pleadings, Plaintiff filed a second motion for leave to file an FAC 

exceeding the twenty-five-page limit, and he lodged a thirty-nine-page FAC. (Doc. Nos. 27, 28.) 

On May 17, 2022, the court entered an order granting Plaintiff leave to file an FAC exceeding 

twenty-five pages and accepting the FAC as filed. (Doc. No. 29.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

objections and motion for relief are denied as moot with respect to the filing of the FAC.

Plaintiff also objects to, and seeks relief from, the court’s denial of his request for the 

original or a copy of his lodged FAC. Plaintiff asserts that he is unable to make copies of his 

filings because Defendants obstruct Plaintiff’s access to the law library, thereby preventing him 

from making copies. Plaintiff argues that without the original or a copy of the lodged FAC or 

the original complaint, he “has nothing to draft a FAC as ordered,” (Doc. No. 22 at 2), and 

cannot “effectively litigate, prosecute, this and other actions without the administrative 

assistance from the Court.” (Doc. No. 23 at 6-7.) Despite these representations, Plaintiff did file 

a revised FAC with exhibits, (Doc. No. 28), which has been accepted for filing. (See Doc. No. 

29.) 

//

Case 1:21-cv-01496-KES-CDB Document 31 Filed 09/16/22 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

3

The court does not ordinarily provide free copies of documents to parties. Young v. Cal. 

Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 1:07-CV-01121-GSA-PC, 2010 WL 2756785, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 

July 12, 2010). “Neither Plaintiff’s pro se status nor his prisoner status entitle him to receive 

complimentary copies.” Harper v. Well Path, LLC., No. 1:21-CV-558-JLT-HBK, 2022 WL 

1104742, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2022). The Clerk’s Office may provide copies of up to 

twenty (20) pages and prepayment of the copy fees at $0.50 per page.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914; 

Harper, 2022 WL 1104742, at *2; Shepard v. Cohen, No. 1:11-cv-00535-LJO-GSA-PC, 2015 

WL 2380810, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 18, 2015). 

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the Clerk to provide him with his requested copies 

without prepayment. The court’s order of April 5, 2022, denying Plaintiff a copy of his lodged 

109-page FAC, does not prevent Plaintiff from obtaining a copy of the rejected FAC or any other 

document in the record.2 Plaintiff may obtain copies from the Clerk of Court if he pays for them 

in advance. Plaintiff’s trust account statement indicates that he has sufficient funds for this 

purpose. (See Doc. Nos. 9, 11.)

Accordingly:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment, (Doc. No. 22), is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s objections to magistrate judge’s orders denying Plaintiff’s motions for 

leave to exceed twenty-five (25) page limit and denying motion for copy of FAC, 

(Doc. No. 23), are OVERRULED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2022 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Checks in the exact amount are payable to “Clerk, USDC.” For larger copy orders, the Plaintiff may contact 

Attorney’s Diversified Service by writing to them at 741 N. Fulton Street, Fresno, CA 93728, by phoning 1–800–

842–2695, by faxing a request to 559–486–4119, or by leaving a voice mail at 559–259–8544. See Young, 2010 WL 

2756785, at *2 n.1. 

2 Copies of documents issued by the Court or filed by Defendants are automatically served on Plaintiff by mail. 

Case 1:21-cv-01496-KES-CDB Document 31 Filed 09/16/22 Page 3 of 3