Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01163/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01163-4/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 

2 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Thomas Stewart, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 12-1163-PHX-RCB (LOA) 

 O R D E R 

 

Plaintiff Thomas Stewart, Jr., who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Yuma, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On 

June 20, 2012, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. On August 16, 

2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. In a September 10, 2012 Order, the 

Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint and this action for failure to state a claim. 

The Clerk of Court entered judgment on the same date. 

On December 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s December 21, 2012 Motion to 

Provide Docket Sheet (Doc. 21) and January 9, 2013 Motion to Provide Documents 

Submitted to this Court (Doc. 22). 

I. Motions 

 Plaintiff requests a copy of the docket sheet and copies of the record in this case in 

order to comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. On December 6, 2012, 

The Clerk of Court transmitted a Certificate of Record to the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Case 2:12-cv-01163-RCB--LOA Document 23 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

Appeals that states “[t]he record on appeal, consisting of the trial transcript (if any) and 

the trial court clerk’s record, is ready for the purposes of the appeal.” Plaintiff is not 

required to submit a certified copy of the docket sheet beyond what the Clerk of Court 

has already provided to the Ninth Circuit. The Court will therefore deny as moot 

Plaintiff’s December 21, 2012 Motion. 

 The Court will also deny the January 9, 2012 Motion to Provide Documents. 

Plaintiff states that he needs the documents filed in this case in order to comply with Rule 

10 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure states that the record on appeal consists of “(1) the original papers 

and exhibits filed in the district court; (2) the transcript of proceedings, if any; and (3) a 

certified copy of the docket entries prepared by the district clerk.” These documents have 

already been transmitted to the Ninth Circuit by the Clerk of Court. Rule 10(b) states that 

the Appellant has the duty to order and provide transcripts. No hearings were held in this 

action and, therefore, there are no transcripts. The Court will therefore also deny as moot 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Provide Documents. 

 To the extent that Plaintiff is requesting copies of documents for his own use, 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.”). 

. . . 

Case 2:12-cv-01163-RCB--LOA Document 23 Filed 02/25/13 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) Plaintiff’s December 21, 2012 Motion to Provide Docket Sheet (Doc. 21) is 

denied as moot. 

 (2) Plaintiff’s January 9, 2013 Motion to Provide Documents (Doc. 22) is 

denied as moot. 

 DATED this 25th day of February, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-01163-RCB--LOA Document 23 Filed 02/25/13 Page 3 of 3