Hunt v. Smith

Full title: KENNETH HUNT PLAINTIFF v. HAROLD SMITH, et al DEFENDANTS

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Eastern Division

Date published: Dec 13, 2007

2:03CV00194-WRW (E.D. Ark. Dec. 13, 2007)

Opinion

2:03CV00194-WRW.

December 13, 2007

ORDER

WILLIAM WILSON JR., District Judge

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

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).

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.

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.

3 Doc. No. 117.

4 Doc. No. 225.

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.