Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Knaubert v. Last Forced Medication Committee

United States District Court, District of Arizona

October 31, 2014

Michael Knaubert, Plaintiff,
v.
Last Forced Medication Committee, Defendant

Michael Knaubert, Plaintiff, Pro se, FLORENCE, AZ.

ORDER

Stephen M. McNamee, Senior United States Judge.

On January 27, 2014, Plaintiff Michael Knaubert, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis . In an April 22, 2014 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. On May 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. In an Order dated July 8, 2014, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint and gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint.

To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. However, he has filed twelve motions. On July 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion (Doc. 19) requesting a new complaint form and a 30-day extension of time to file an amended complaint. That same day, Plaintiff filed a " Motion to File Criminal Charges" (Doc. 20). Since then, Plaintiff has filed a " Motion to Explain on Pica Typewriter for the Courts" (Doc. 22), a " Motion for Legal Release Due to Laws and Facts of This Case" (Doc. 23), a " Motion for [Illegible] of Court Case on Bench Trial" (Doc. 24)[1], a " Motion for [Illegible] on 5-7 Issues Not Yet Brought" (Doc. 25), a " Motion for Correction" (Doc. 26), a " Motion for Immed[iat]e Release Again" (Doc. 27), a " Motion for Copies of All Paper to and from the Courts as Mine were Stolen or Lost by D.O.C." (Doc. 30), a " Motion for Requesting Instruction from the Courts" (Doc. 31), a " Motion for Exten[s]ion of Time" (Doc. 32), and a " Motion to Explain Were About and What Transpired Since Last Answer from the Courts in July, August 2014" (Doc. 33).

The Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 19) for an extension of time to file an amended complaint and for a new complaint form. Plaintiff will have 30 days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court's July 8, 2014 Order. Plaintiff's additional motion requesting an extension of time (Doc. 32) will be denied as moot.

I. Unresponsive Motions

Most of Plaintiff's other motions are not responsive to the Court's July 8, 2014 Order directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, do not request specific relief from the Court, or contain rambling narratives that appear unrelated to Plaintiff's initial Complaint.[2] Moreover, because there is currently no pleading before the Court (the Complaint having been dismissed for failure to state a claim and no amended complaint having as yet been filed), general motions practice is inappropriate. Accordingly, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to strike from the record those motions which the Court finds unnecessary or irrelevant to Plaintiff's compliance with the Order to amend his Complaint. Those are Plaintiff's " Motion to File Criminal Charges" (Doc. 20), " Motion to Explain on Pica Typewriter for the Courts" (Doc. 22), " Motion for Legal Release Due to Laws and Facts of This Case" (Doc. 23), " Motion for [Illegible] of Court Case on Bench Trial" (Doc. 24), " Motion for [Illegible] on 5-7 Issues Not Yet Brought" (Doc. 25), " Motion for Correction" (Doc. 26), " Motion for Immed[iat]e Release Again" (Doc. 27), " Motion for Requesting Instruction from the Courts" (Doc. 31), and a " Motion to Explain were About and What Transpired Since Last Answer from the Courts in July, August 2014" (Doc. 33).

II. Motion for Copies

In his Motion for Copies, Plaintiff states that all paperwork " is either stolen or lost by D.O.C." and he asks that the Court " replace it all at [his] expense and tack it on [his] bill with the courts." This motion will be denied except that the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff a copy of the July 8, 2014 Order for guidance on filing an amended complaint. For any other documents, 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. Plaintiff may obtain copies of documents filed in this case by submitting a written request accompanied by pre-payment of the 50 cents per page copy fee.

Plaintiff should note that an inmate has no right to free copies of pleadings. See In Re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (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"); Robinson v. Miscellaneous, No. 09C0148, 2009 WL 1649697, at *4 (E.D. Wis. June 11, 2009); Joseph v. Director of Circle K Corp., No. CV97-2214-PHX-RCB, 2008 WL 4838712, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 5, 2008). Further, the Ninth Circuit has rejected any constitutional right to unlimited free photocopying. See Johnson v. Moore, 926 F.2d 921, 923 (9th Cir. 1991) ( per curiam ), superseded 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 Supreme Court has declared that 'the expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress . . . .'" Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321, 96 S.Ct. 2086, 48 L.Ed.2d 666 (1976)). The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, authorizes the Court to pay for service of process on behalf of an indigent litigant and, in certain cases, to pay the costs of printing the record on appeal and preparing a transcript of proceedings, but the statute does not authorize the Court to pay the costs for an indigent litigant's general copy requests. Cf. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (§ 1915 does not authorize the district courts to waive payment of fees or expenses for witnesses); Tedder, 890 F.2d at 211-12 (same).

III. Warnings

A. Release

Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of his release. Also, within 30 days of his release, he must either (1) notify the Court that he intends to pay the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why he ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.