Chambers v. Ishee et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 5:23-cv-00005-MR
PATRICK J. CHAMBERS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
TODD ISHEE, et al., ) ORDER
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s pro se “Motion for
Denied Access to Law Research” [Doc. 42].
The pro se incarcerated Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Amended Complaint passed initial review against two
Defendants for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. [See Docs.
27, 36]. The Defendants were served and filed an Answer, and the Court
entered a Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan in which it appointed
North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services (NCPLS) to conduct discovery on the
Plaintiff’s behalf, set the discovery cutoff date as May 3, 2024, and made
dispositive motions due by June 3, 2024. [Docs. 37, 39]. On January 18,
2024, NCPLS entered a Notice of Non-Representation, stating that it is
unable to accept the appointment in this matter. [Doc. 40].
Case 5:23-cv-00005-MR Document 43 Filed 03/11/24 Page 1 of 3

2
On January 21, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion in which he
appears to seek a free photocopy of the Court’s file. [Doc. 42]. He argues
that he is being denied access to the courts; that his correspondence with
NCPLS has been delayed due to staff shortages and limited resources; that
prison policy allows prisoners to access to legal research only during certain
hours; that the Plaintiff is on “D-seg” for 20 days during which time he will not
be able to conduct legal research1; that the prison staff are “toxic” and
discriminatory; that the Plaintiff’s health issues have increased; that the
Plaintiff has four active lawsuits in which he has been denied relief2; and his
grievances to prison officials have been unanswered. [Id.]. Citing Rule
79(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,3 the Plaintiff requests
that “papers filed with clerk, records kept by clerk be forwarded to both
parties of inadequate law access.” [Id. at 1].
The Plaintiff’s request for a free photocopy of the Court’s file is denied.
The Plaintiff may request photocopies pursuant to the Court’s standard rates.
1 The Plaintiff does not appear to seek an extension of the scheduling order deadlines at
this time.
2 To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks relief in his other cases, he must do so separately
by filing an appropriate Motion in each of those matters.
3 Rule 79(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “papers filed with
the clerk” must be “marked with the file number and entered chronologically in the
docket….”
Case 5:23-cv-00005-MR Document 43 Filed 03/11/24 Page 2 of 3

3
See United States v. MacCollum, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976) (“expenditure of
public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized
by Congress”); Pickens v. Lewis, 2017 WL 2198342, at *2 (W.D.N.C. May
18, 2017) (noting that 28 U.S.C.§ 1915 does not authorize the payment of
litigation expenses, and “[o]rdinarily, the plaintiff must bear the costs of his
litigation ... even in pro se cases”); see also
https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/court-fees $.50 per page for photocopies).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s “Motion for Denied
Access to Law Research” [Doc. 42] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: March 11, 2024
Case 5:23-cv-00005-MR Document 43 Filed 03/11/24 Page 3 of 3