Roy Douglas v. Lamoyne Green, Superintendent Marion Corr. Inst., the State of Ohio, 327 F.2d 661 (6th Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Roy Douglas v. Lamoyne Green, Superintendent Marion Corr. Inst., the State of Ohio, 327 F.2d 661 (6th Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis, section 1915(a), title 28 united states code, does not include the right to obtain copies of court orders without payment therefor”
13 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Del Campo v. Community of Hope (nmd, 2020-07-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Del Campo v. Community of Hope
D.N.M. · 2020 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis, section 1915(a), title 28 united states code, does not include the right to obtain copies of court orders without payment therefor
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Woodall v. United States
N.D. Ohio · 2024 · confidence medium
“The statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis . . . does not include the right to obtain copies of court orders without payment therefor.” Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661, 662 (6th Cir. 1964) (per curiam); see also Malouf v. Detroit Med.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McDonald v. Williams
D. Nev. · 2021 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Collins v. Goord, 438 F.Supp. 2d 26 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); Guinn v. Hoecker, 43 F.3d 1483 (10th Cir. 1994) (no right to free copy 27 of any document in record unless plaintiff demonstrates specific need); In re Richard, 914 1 F.2d 1526 (6th Cir. 1990) ( 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not give litigant right to have documents 2 copied at government expense); Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661, 662 (6th Cir. 1964) (no free 3 copy of court orders). 4 Here, Plaintiff is not entitled to copies on request.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Atkins v. Vilt
W.D. Ky. · 2021 · confidence medium
And “[t]he statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis … does not include the right to obtain copies of court orders without payment therefor.” Id. (citing Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661, 662 (6th Cir. 1964)); see also Marinkovic v. Hazelwood, No. 1:19-cv- 1710, 2021 WL 50855 , at *1 (N.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Braden v. Estelle
S.D. Tex. · 1977 · confidence medium
See, e. g., Beard v. Stephens, 372 F.2d 685, 690 (5th Cir. 1967) (cost of depositions not included), Harless v. United States, 329 F.2d 397, 398-99 (5th Cir. 1964) (cost of copies of court orders not included); Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661, 662 (6th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 862 , 85 S.Ct. 126 , 13 L.Ed.2d 66 (1964) (cost of copies of court orders not included); Ebenhart v. Power, 309 F.Supp. 660, 661 (S.D.N.Y.1969) (cost of depositions not included).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ebenhart v. Power
S.D.N.Y. · 1969 · confidence medium
Perkins v. Rich, 198 F.Supp. 615 (D.Del. 1961); see Beard v. Stephens, 372 F.2d 685, 690 (5th Cir. 1967); Harless v. United States, 329 F.2d 397, 398-399 (5th Cir. 1964); Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661, 662 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 862 , 85 S.Ct. 126 , 13 L.Ed.2d 66 (1964); Hullom v. Kent, 262 F.2d 862, 863-864 (6th Cir. 1959); Seybold v. Milwaukee County Sheriff, 276 F.Supp. 484 -487-488 (E.D.Wis.1967); Villanueva v. Gulf Oil Corp., 262 F.Supp. 492, 494 (E.D.Pa.1967); Diaz v. Chatterton, 229 F.Supp. 19, 23 (S.D.Cal. 1964); Cheek v. Thompson, 33 F.Supp. 497, 499 (W.D.La.1940); cf. Al…
discussed Cited "see" Martin v. U.C. Medical Center
S.D. Ohio · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661, 662 (6th Cir. 1964) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not include the right to obtain copies of court documents and denying the plaintiff’s request for copies of papers he sent to the court absent a showing of the need for such copies).
cited Cited "see" Anderson v. Gillis
3rd Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661, 662 (6th Cir.1964) (per curiam) (statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis does not include right to free copies of court orders).
discussed Cited "see" Barbara Schwarz v. Interpol, Office of Information and Privacy and Executive Office of United States Attorneys (2×)
10th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661, 662 (6th Cir.) (per curiam)(statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis does not include right to free copies of court orders), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 862 (1964); Hullom v. Kent, 262 F.2d 862, 863-64 (6th Cir.1959)(same, citing cases).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Roy DOUGLAS, Appellant,
v.
LaMoyne GREEN, Superintendent Marion Correctional Institution, the State of Ohio, Et Al., Appellees
15716_1.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Feb 18, 1964.
327 F.2d 661
Roy Douglas, in pro. per., William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen. of Ohio, John Cianfiona, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, for defendants-appellees.
Miller, Phillips, Edwards.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

In this Declaratory Judgment action filed by appellant in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Toledo, Ohio, the District Judge sustained ap-pellees’ motion to dismiss, from which order this appeal was taken. The original record was filed with the Clerk of this Court on January 14, 1964.

Appellant filed a motion in this Court on January 28, 1964, that the Clerk of the District Court be required to issue to appellant photostatic copies of all the papers sent to this Court or that he be transported under guard to Toledo, Ohio, for the purpose of copying “certain necessary papers.” The motion states that the District Clerk has denied appellant’s request to supply him “with copies of the necessary records.”

The statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis, Section 1915(a), Title 28 United States Code, does not include the right to obtain copies of court orders without payment therefor. Hullom v. Kent, 262 F.2d 862, C.A. 6th, and cases cited therein. Section 753(f), Title 28 United States Code, deals with a copy of the transcript of evidence at Government expense, not with a copy of the record.

The motion does not specify what are-the so-called “necessary papers” or why-appellant needs such copies. He necessarily knows what he alleged in his complaint, even if he did not retain a copy.. No evidence was heard in the District. Court. The District Judge wrote an, opinion in sustaining appellees’ motion, to dismiss, a copy of which no doubt was-mailed to appellant at the time of the, ruling. See: Johnson v. United States, 352 U.S. 565, 77 S.Ct. 550,1 L.Ed.2d 593; Miller v. United States, 317 U.S. 192, 198, 63 S.Ct. 187, 87 L.Ed. 179.

In the absence of a more specific-statement of what papers he seeks copies, of, and a showing of the need for such, copies, the motion is denied.