ROCHER
v.
UNITED STATES
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 filings absent extraordinary circumstances, and the requested document was not in the court's possession.
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, moved for free copies of a "42 page (handwritten) memorandum" allegedly containing additional grounds for his § 2255 mo…
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 Local Court Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
Respondent. /
ORDER1
Before the Court is pro se Petitioner’s Motion to Request Copies (Doc. 26). As the Motion does not include a Local Rule 3.01(g) certification, it is denied. Local Rule 3.01(g) (requiring movant to confer with the opposing party and include a certification the conference occurred). Even leaving that aside, the Court denies the Motion on the merits. Petitioner wants a free copy of his “42 page (handwritten) memorandum which contains Grounds 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 of Petitioners § 2255 Motion.” (Doc. 26 at 1) (errors in original). There are two problems with this.
Second—and most important—the Court does not have the filing Petitioner requests. Petitioner filed a § 2255 Motion on four Grounds. (Doc. 1). He alluded to five others but never said what those might be. Nor did he supplement his original § 2255 Motion with those added grounds. Two earlier
Orders explained that. (Docs. 15 at 19; 20 at 2-3). Still, according to Petitioner, he filed a forty-two-page addendum with the five unidentified grounds. While unclear, the Court assumes this supplement is the same as the seventy-two-page filing Petitioner referenced on reconsideration. See (Doc. 19). Put simply, however, there is nothing to send. The Clerk scans and files all mail from pro se litigants. Because the Court received no addendum, no filing exists. And as explained before, the Court is unaware of any § 2255 grounds aside from the four it ruled on when denying the original § 2255 Motion. (Doc. 15 at 19). Even if Petitioner drafted—but never filed—a § 2255 supplement, the Court cannot provide copies of something it doesn’t have. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Petitioner’s Motion to Request Copies (Doc. 26) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 26, 2022.
, Lh platrathe 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record