LEON BRIGHT
v.
CITY OF TAMPA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a pro se litigant is not entitled to free copies of court documents for appeal beyond those already provided.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, requested free copies of his Fourth Amended Complaint and other pleadings from the clerk for purposes of appeal. This wa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Reconsideration cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Leon Bright's "Second Request for Clerk to Produce One Free Copy of Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 45) and Motion for Leave to Amend/Vacate (Doc. 52) and Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 55)." See Doc. 64. Plaintiff seeks copies of the pleadings listed in the title of his motion from the clerk, "for purposes of appeal," noting that he had not received such copies as of his request on March 7, 2024. See Doc. 56.
Upon review and consideration, and being fully advised in the premises, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion. In fact, his previous request was already denied by Magistrate Judge Natalie Hirt Adams on April 4, 2024. Doc. 67. As Magistrate Judge Adams stated in her order, “[a]lthough Plaintiff is proceeding without a lawyer, he is not entitled to more free copies of documents filed in this case, beyond those already provided by the Clerk's office. Jackson v. Fla. Dep't of Fin. Servs., 479 F. App'x 289, 292– 293 (11th Cir. 2012) (relying on Harless v. United States, 329 F. 2d 397, 398-399 (5th Cir. 1964)) ("The statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis does not include the right to obtain copies of court orders, indictments, and transcript of record, without payment therefor, for use in proposed or prospective litigation."); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b) (prescribing that the Court collect certain fees, including those for copies). Plaintiff is responsible for keeping or making duplicate copies of his filings. Doc. 67 at 2.
Therefore, Plaintiff's request will again be DENIED. The fee associated with reproducing any paper record is $0.50 per page. 28 U.S.C. § 1914 (JUDICIAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULE OF FEES, District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, 4.a.). The Clerk will require the prepayment of fees prior to providing copies of any documents. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(c). Plaintiff is directed to pay the Clerk of Court for any copies he requires.
Finally, to the extent Plaintiff's instant motion (Doc. 64) seeks reconsideration or vacatur of any previous order, he fails to specify the relief sought or develop these arguments, and any such request will therefore be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff Leon Bright's “Second Request for Clerk to Produce One Free Copy of Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 45) and Motion for Leave to Amend/Vacate (Doc. 52) and Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 55)" (Doc. 64) is
DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on April 12, 2024.
Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge
Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Parties