IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
November 8, 2012
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Terrence F. McVerry
Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
ECF No. 19
Pending before the court is a motion for permission to supplement Petitioner's habeas corpus petition. The petition was filed in May, 2011. Although petitioner states that he was deprived access to his legal materials it is still over a year since the original petition was filed. Petitioner further requests that he be provided with a list of all documents in his state court record. Petitioner should already have copies of everything in his state court record. In addition, Petitioner is advised that any copies he requests the court to make must be paid for at a charge of fifty cents per page, despite the fact that he is proceeding in forma pauperis.
The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, allows for the waiver of prepayment filing fees, but does not provide for the payment of any other litigation expenses. There is no statute this Court is aware of that authorizes the court to commit federal funds to pay for expenses in a civil litigation matter. Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 158-59 (3d Cir. 1993). See also Perkins v. Rich, 198 F. Supp 615 (D.C. Del 1961) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 applied only to court costs and did not authorize the plaintiff to be furnished with copies free of charge);
In re Fullman, 152 F. 2d 141 (App. D.C. 1945)(finding that there is no provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 requiring the district court or the clerk thereof to furnish the indigent litigant with copies of papers or records.)
There is no index of the state court records provided and it is not the court's obligation to review the records to compile a list of the documents and transcripts included. In addition, Petitioner needs to be more specific as to what it is he is seeking and what he would like to add as a supplement. If he can do so, the court will reconsider his request to supplement his petition. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 8th day of November, 2012, that Petitioner's Motion for Permission to Supplement is DENIED without prejudice to refile as indicated above.
Cc: GARY PAVLIC DV 2415 SCI Smithfield 1120 Pike Street Huntingdon, PA 16652
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.