Feedback

Hearn V Warden

1                                                                            
2                                                                            
3                                                                            
4                                                                            
5                                                                            
6                                                                            
7                                                                            
8                     UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           
9                   SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA                          
10                                                                            
11  WILLIAM HEARN,                       Case No.:  22-cv-255-AGS-DDL         

12                                     Plaintiff,                             
                                        ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR            
13  v.                                   COPY OF AMENDED COMPLAINT            

14  J. CEPEDA, Correction Officer – RJD;                                      
                                        [Dkt. No. 121]                       
   L. ALFARO, Correction Officer – RJD;                                      
15                                                                            
   S. BRAVO-MANCILLA,                                                        

16                                                                            
                                            Defendants.                      
17                                                                            

18                                                                            
19       Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, moves to be resent a 
20  copy of his amended complaint. Dkt. No. 121. He represents “most of [his paperwork] was 
21  destroyed” because of an altercation involving his previous cellmate. Id.  
22       “While ‘prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts,’ there is no 
23  constitutional right to receive photocopies free of charge.” Arellano v. Blahnik, 2020 WL 
24  6319130, at *1 (S.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2020, No. 16CV2412-CAB-MSB) (quoting Bounds v. 
25  Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977)); see also Jones v. Franzen, 697 F.2d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 
26  1983) (“[B]road as the constitutional concept of liberty is, it does not include the right to 
27  xerox.”)). This is no different for litigants proceeding in forma pauperis. Arellano, 2020 
28  WL 6319130, at *1 (citing  Hadsell v. Comm’r, 107 F.3d 750, 752 (9th Cir. 1997)). 
|         Although the Court does not generally provide parties with copies of the pleadings, 
2   given the circumstances here, the Court finds it appropriate to provide Plaintiff with a copy 
3    of his amended complaint.  Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.  The Clerk’s 
+ || Office is ORDERED to mail Plaintiff a copy of this order along with a copy of Dkt. Nos. 
>          (“Second   Amended   Complaint’)   and   100   (“Order   Adopting   Report   and 
6 |! Recommendation and Granting in Part Motion to Dismiss”).  Plaintiff is cautioned that the 
7 || Court is not ordering the Clerk’s Office to provide Plaintiff with copies of every pleading 
8 |! that he may require in the future. If Plaintiff should need copies of any court documents 
9 || from the Clerk of the Court, they may be purchased at $0.50 per page. 
10 
11         IT IS SO ORDERED. 
12   ||Dated:  July 22, 2025 
13                                         Tb  lh we 
14                                        Hon.DavidD.Leshner       ——its—S 
15                                         United States Magistrate Judge 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28