Bill Ray Guinn v. Robert L. Hoecker, Clerk, 43 F.3d 1483 (10th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Bill Ray Guinn v. Robert L. Hoecker, Clerk, 43 F.3d 1483 (10th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
65 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Santa and Associated Case in US District Court (nmb, 2021-02-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Santa and Associated Case in US District Court
Bankr. D.N.M. · 2021 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., Inc., 415 U.S. 1, 24 (1974) (“Mere litigation expense, even substantial and unrecoupable cost, does not constitute irreparable injury”); Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc. v. Woolsey & Co., Inc., 43 F.3d 1483, at *2 (10th Cir. 1994) (unpublished) (quoting Bannercraft); Consumer Data Industry Assoc. v. King, 2011 WL 13268851 , at *3 (D.N.M.) (citing Bannercraft, the court held “[i]t is well established that the expense of defending against litigation, even expense that is ‘substantial and unrecoupable,’ does not constitute irrepara…
cited Cited "see" Wilson v. Mediko Correctional Healthcare
E.D. Va. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Guinn v. Hoecker, No. 94-1257, 1994 WL 702684, at *1 (10th Cir. 1994); In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990).
discussed Cited "see" Leachco, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission
E.D. Okla. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. v. Woolsey & Co., 43 F.3d 1483, at *2 (10th Cir. 1994) (unpublished) (holding that litigation expenses incurred in state court action did not constitute irreparable harm for the purpose of enjoining the state court action).
cited Cited "see" Ingram v. Spotsylvania County Circuit Court
E.D. Va. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Guinn v. Hoecker, No. 94-1257, 1994 WL 702684 , - at *1 (10th Cir. 1994); In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cox v. Board of Parole
D. Neb. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence low
The statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis does not include the right to receive copies of documents without payment. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 ; see also Guinn v. Heckler, 43 F.3d 1483 (10th Cir. 1994) (unpublished table decision) (“Plaintiff's principal error, however, is his apparent belief that an order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis, without the payment of the ‘fees and costs’ referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a), includes the right to have free copies of any documents in the record the indigent party desires.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cox v. City of Omaha
D. Neb. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence low
The statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis does not include the right to receive copies of documents without payment. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 ; see also Guinn v. Heckler, 43 F.3d 1483 (10th Cir. 1994) (unpublished table decision) (“Plaintiff's principal error, however, is his apparent belief that an order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis, without the payment of the ‘fees and costs’ referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a), includes the right to have free copies of any documents in the record the indigent party desires.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." George v. Michalek
E.D. Va. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Guinn v. Hoecker, No. 94-1257, 1994 WL 702684, at *1 (10th Cir. Dec. 15, 1994) (explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not include right to free copy of any document in record and that a court may constitutionally require indigent plaintiff to demonstrate need for free copy); Jn re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990) (concluding in forma pauperis status “does not give the litigant a right to have documents copied . . . at government expense”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cerilli v. Lamont
D. Conn. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Collins v. Goord, 438 F. Supp. 2d 399, 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (inmates have no constitutional right to free photocopies); see also Guinn v. Hoecker, 43 F.3d 1483 (10th Cir., 1994) ( 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not include a right to a free copy of any document in the court record; court may constitutionally require indigent plaintiff to demonstrate need for free copy).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Gleason v. Comm'r
Tax Ct. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
Sec. 6501(a) , (c)(3) ; see also Taylor v. Commissioner , 43 F.3d 1483 (10th Cir. 1994) , affg. without published opinion T.C.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v. United States (2×)
2d Cir. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Hayman, 992 F.2d at 1260 (implying that "reason to know" is a "finding[] of fact"); Bankers Trust Co. v. Crawford, 781 F.2d 39, 44 (3d Cir. 1986) (referring to "reason to know" as a "finding[] of fact"); see also Taylor v. Commissioner, 43 F.3d 1483 , 1994 WL 704748, at *2 (10th Cir. Dec. 19, 1994) (unpublished table decision, available for citation according to 10th Cir. Local Rule 36.3) (referring to "reason to know" as a "finding of fact"). 42 Constructive knowledge.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ronald D. Rother v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner Social Security Administration
10th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Jenkins v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 1083, 1087 (8th Cir.1988)(500 jobs in the region are a significant number); Allen v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 600, 602 (11th Cir.1987) (174 jobs in the area are a significant number); see also Scott v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1483 , 1994 WL 708217 , at ---2 (10th Cir. Dec. 21, 1994) (195 jobs in Oklahoma qualifies as a significant number).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rother v. Chater
10th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Jenkins v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 1083, 1087 (8th Cir. 1988)(500 jobs in the region are a significant number); Allen v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 600, 602 (11th Cir. 1987) (174 jobs in the area are a significant number); see also Scott v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1483 , 1994 WL 708217, at **2 (10th Cir. Dec. 21, 1994) (195 jobs in Oklahoma qualifies as a significant number).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re New York State Silicone Breast Implant Litigation
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Miller v Wyeth Labs., 43 F3d 1483 , No. 94-6090, 1994 WL 708197 (10th Cir 1994) (unpublished disposition) (vaccine); Lee v Baxter Health Care Corp., 898 F2d 146 (4th Cir 1990); White v Celotex Corp., 907 F2d 104 (9th Cir 1990) (asbestos); Robertson v Allied Signal, 914 F2d 360 (3d Cir 1990) (asbestos in tire plant); Setliff v du Pont de Nemours & Co., 32 Cal App 4th 1525, 38 Cal Rptr 2d 763 (3d Dist 1995) (paints, solvents, strippers, glue products); Becker v Baron Bros., 138 NJ 145, 649 A2d 613 (1994) (asbestos brake shoes); York v Lunkes, 189 111 App 3d 689, 545 NE2d 478 (1989) (b…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bill Ray Guinn
v.
Robert L. Hoecker, Clerk
94-1257.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Dec 15, 1994.
43 F.3d 1483
1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 39764
1994 WL 702684
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

43 F.3d 1483

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Bill Ray GUINN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Robert L. HOECKER, Clerk, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-1257.

United States Court of Appeals,

Tenth Circuit.

Dec. 15, 1994.

Before McWILLIAMS, BARRETT and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[1]

1

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

2

Plaintiff Bill Ray Guinn filed a civil rights action against Robert L. Hoecker, clerk of this court, alleging violation of his constitutional rights because the clerk would not give him a free copy of one page of a document in the record of appeal plaintiff lost in this court. Plaintiff allegedly wanted the page to assist him in preparing a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation that the case be dismissed because the action was brought under 42 U.S.C.1983, the defendant had immunity from civil rights actions while carrying out his responsibilities as clerk, and a claim involving fifty cents is so de minimis as not to rise to a constitutional violation.

3

Hoecker, of course, is a federal official and is not amenable to suit under 1983. He could be sued under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which recognizes a federal cause of action for a constitutional tort. Even construing this pro se complaint liberally to assert a federal civil rights violation, the dismissal was correct. In imposing copying charges, Hoecker was following the direction of the court itself, and hence has absolute immunity. See Gregory v. United States/United States Bankruptcy Court for Dist. of Colo., 942 F.2d 1498, 1500 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 2276 (1992). Further, if there is such a thing as a constitutional violation so de minimis as not to be recognizable, as we have held, see Artes-Roy v. City of Aspen, 31 F.3d 958, 962-63 (10th Cir.1994), this case, involving fifty cents, is surely it.

4

Plaintiff's principal error, however, is his apparent belief that an order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis, without the payment of the "fees and costs" referenced in 28 U.S.C.1915(a), includes the right to have free copies of any documents in the record the indigent party desires. It does not; and the court's requirement that an indigent party obtain a court order waiving the copy fee by proving to a panel of judges plaintiff's need for a free copy is constitutional.

5

Plaintiff's "Motion For The Striking Of False And Misleading Statements Made In Bad Faith Within Appellee's Answer Brief, And For The Imposition Of Disciplinary Sanctions, And Award Of Pro se Attorney Fees For Defendant's Counsel's Abuse of Pleadings" and his request for a restraining order and injunction are denied.

6

AFFIRMED.

7

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

1

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470