Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00658/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00658-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

WO KM 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Carl David Fulton, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 12-658-PHX-GMS (BSB) 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Carl David Fulton, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexYuma, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a May 1, 2012 Order, the Court granted 

the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. 

On June 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time, which the Court 

granted in an August 7, 2012 Order. Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within 

the new 30-day deadline. On September 20, 2012, the Clerk of Court entered a Judgment 

dismissing this action for failure to comply with a Court order. 

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration” (Doc. 13), 

“Motion to Obtain Transcripts, Documents, Instruments, and All Relevant Data” 

(Doc. 14), “Motion to Adjust, Reduce, Suspend and/or Waive Court Fees” (Doc. 15); 

Motion to Request Conformed Copies (Doc. 16), and a Motion for Discovery and to 

Appoint Counsel (Doc. 17). The Court will deny the Motions. 

. . . 

Case 2:12-cv-00658-GMS--BSB Document 18 Filed 04/01/13 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

I. Motion for Reconsideration 

 “Motions to reconsider are appropriate only in rare circumstances.” Defenders of 

Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “The purpose of a motion 

for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly 

discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). 

Such motions should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the 

court had already thought through – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. 

Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 

101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). 

Plaintiff has not made any arguments in support of his Motion for 

Reconsideration. However, the Court has reviewed the dismissal of this action and finds 

no basis to reconsider its decision. The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Reconsideration. 

II. Motions for Copies, Documents, and Discovery 

 To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking copies of documents filed in this case, the 

Clerk of Court charges 50 cents per page for reproducing any record or paper. See

Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees & 4, foll. 28 U.S.C. § 1914. An inmate has no right 

to free copies of pleadings. See In Re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 127 (6th Cir. 1990) (per

curiam) (28 U.S.C. § 1915 “does not give a litigant a right to have documents copied and 

returned to him at government expense”). Further, the Ninth Circuit has rejected any 

constitutional right to unlimited free photocopying. See Johnson v. Moore, 936 F.2d 921, 

923 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam), superceded on other grounds, 948 F.2d 517 (9th Cir. 

1991) (per curiam); and Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1989) (rejecting 

any constitutional right to free and unlimited photocopying) (citing Jones v. Franzen, 697 

F.2d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 1983) (“[B]road as the constitutional concept of liberty is, it does 

not include the right to xerox.”). The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s motions for 

copies. 

Case 2:12-cv-00658-GMS--BSB Document 18 Filed 04/01/13 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

 To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking documents and other information from the 

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, this case is closed and discovery is no longer available 

to Plaintiff. 

 The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s Motions for copies, documents, and 

discovery (Docs. 14, 16, and 17). 

III. Motion to Adjust, Reduce, Suspend and/or Waive Court Fees 

 Plaintiff asks that the Court reduce or waive the filing fee for this case, or 

alternatively, suspend collection of the fee for 360 days. 

 Title 28 U.S.C. '1915(b)(1) states: 

[I]f a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma 

pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount 

of a filing fee. The court shall assess and, when funds exist, 

collect, as a partial payment of any court fees required by law, 

an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater ofB

 (A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner's 

account; or 

 (B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner's 

account for the 6Bmonthly period immediately proceeding the 

filing of the complaint or notice of appeal. 

 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not provide any authority or mechanism for the Court 

to reduce or waive the payment of Plaintiff=s filing fee, or to suspend collection of the 

filing fee. 

 It is clear that in amending 28 U.S.C. § 1915 with the enactment of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26, 1996) 

(PLRA), Congress intended to provide financial disincentives for prisoners filing lawsuits 

in forma pauperis. See Lyon v. Krol, 127 F.3d 763, 764 (8th Cir. 1997) (“Congress 

enacted PLRA with the principal purpose of deterring frivolous prisoner litigation by 

instituting economic costs for prisoners wishing to file civil claims. See, e.g., H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 104-378, at 166-67 (1995); 141 Cong. Rec. S14626 (daily ed.) (Sept. 29, 1995) 

(statement of Sen. Dole)”). 

Case 2:12-cv-00658-GMS--BSB Document 18 Filed 04/01/13 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

 The decision to file and prosecute this case was made by Plaintiff before he filed 

this case. Having filed this case, Plaintiff and the Court are both statutorily limited by the 

strictures of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s “Motion to 

Adjust, Reduce, Suspend and/or Waive Court Fees.” 

IV. Motion to Appoint Counsel 

 Because this case is closed, the Court will deny as moot the Motion to Appoint 

Counsel. 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 13) is denied. 

 (2) Plaintiff’s “Motion to Obtain Transcripts, Documents, and . . . Relevant 

Data” (Doc. 14) is denied. 

 (3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Adjust, Reduce, Suspend and/or Waive Court Fees 

(Doc. 15) is denied. 

 (4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Conformed Copies (Doc. 16) is denied. 

 (5) Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery and to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 17) is 

denied. 

 Dated this 1st day of April, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-00658-GMS--BSB Document 18 Filed 04/01/13 Page 4 of 4