Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_03-cv-00194/USCOURTS-ared-2_03-cv-00194-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Other Civil Rights

---

1

Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 605 (M.D. Pa. 1991) (§ 1915 does not require the

government to advance funds for deposition expenses); Doe v. United States, 112 F.R.D. 183,

184-85 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (in forma pauperis statute does not require government to advance

funds for deposition expenses); Tajeddini v. Gulch, 942 F. Supp. 772, 782 (D. Conn. 1996) (in

forma pauperis status does not require advancement of fund by the court for deposition

expenses).

2

Coates v. Kafczynski, No. 2:05-CV-3, 2006 WL 416244, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 22,

2006) (holding that court is not authorized to pay for depositions); Toliver v. Cmty. Action

Comm'n to Help the Econ., 613 F. Supp. 1070, 1072 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (no clear statutory

authority for the repayment of discovery costs for pro se in forma pauperis plaintiff). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EASTERN DIVISION

KENNETH HUNT PLAINTIFF

V. 2:03CV00194-WRW

HAROLD SMITH, et al DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending are Plaintiff’s Request for Approval of Expenditure (Doc. No. 223) and Motion

for Reconsideration of Denial of Model Federal Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement Complaint

(Doc. No. 224).

Request for Approval of Expenditure

Plaintiff’s Request for Approval of Expenditure (Doc. No. 223) is DENIED. A pro se

litigant does not have a right to have discovery expenses paid for by the court.1 In fact, some

courts have held that the court has no authority to grant expenses for depositions.2

Plaintiff asserts that he has five defendants he needs to depose. However, Plaintiff has

not named who needs to be deposed, nor has he shown what information he seeks to elicit

through depositions and how it relates to his claims. Moreover, Plaintiff has not established that

he is unable to obtain the information he seeks by other means of discovery.

Case 2:03-cv-00194-BRW Document 226 Filed 12/13/07 Page 1 of 2
3

Doc. No. 117.

4

Doc. No. 225.

2

Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Model Federal Rules of Disciplinary

Enforcement Complaint (Doc. No. 224) is DENIED. In a May 18, 2006 Order3 and, again, in a 

December 6, 2007 Order,4

 I directed Plaintiff to no longer file pleadings on this issue. 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to no longer accept or file any documents submitted by

Plaintiff regarding disciplining his former lawyer.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of December, 2007.

 /s/ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.______

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00194-BRW Document 226 Filed 12/13/07 Page 2 of 2