Opinion
No. 10-cv-0988 JAP/SMV
05-07-2012
STEVEN DEGRAFF, Plaintiff, v. NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REDUCED COPY CHARGES
THIS MATTER is before the Court on an Untitled Motion [Docs. 47] ("Motion for Reduced Copy Charges" or "Motion"). Defendants have not responded to the Motion. The Court, being fully advised in the premises, FINDS that the Motion is not well-taken and should be DENIED.
Plaintiff appears to be requesting that the Court order Defendants to provide photocopying services at a reduced rate "due to indigence." Motion [Doc. 47] at 1. "The federal standard set [forth] in Gluth v. Kangas 773 F. Supp 1309 [sic] of 5 cents per page is respectfully requested."Plaintiff explains that the correctional facility's policy of charging 25 or 50 cents per page is too high for "most inmates" to afford, which he concludes "disrupt[s] litigation and defer[s the] filing of documents in court." Id.
Plaintiff appears to be citing to two orders by the District of Arizona. In Gluth v. Kangas, 773 F. Supp. 1309, 1311-12, 1988 U.S. Dist LEXIS 17618 at *5 (D. Ariz. 1988), the district court examined an Arizona state prison's policies on, inter alia, photocopy charges, and it granted summary judgment in favor of the inmates on their class action § 1983 claims. In Gluth v. Ariz. Dep't of Corr., 773 F. Supp. 1309, 1321, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19224 at *17 (D. Ariz. 1990), the district court ordered the defendants to remedy the constitutional violations with numerous specific changes, including providing photocopies for five cents per page.
The Court will deny the motion because Gluth is not binding on this Court and because Plaintiff has not claimed—much less shown—that his ability to access the Court is prevented by the current photocopy charges.
In fact, the record indicates that Plaintiff has submitted no fewer than sixteen filings with Court since his Complaint and has made one telephone call to the Court Clerk's office. See [Docs. 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 19, 21, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 46, 47, November 1, 2010 phone call].
--------
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Untitled Motion [Docs. 47] ("Motion for Reduced Copy Charges") is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________
STEPHAN M. VIDMAR
United States Magistrate Judge