Davitt v. Chatholic Charities
- Donovan Frank
- 0:23-cv-03401
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Michael Davitt v. Chatholic Charities, Judge Foster denied Davitt’s request to have the court pay for copies of two earlier complaints.
Michael Davitt’s request for payment of copying costs was denied. Chatholic Charities et al. were defendants, but the order did not impose relief on them or decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Michael Davitt v. Chatholic Charities, Michael Davitt asked the court to pay the cost of copying two earlier complaints so he could respond to an order requiring him to explain his claims.
The court said the statute allowing people to proceed without paying filing fees does not authorize paying copying costs for filings consisting only of exhibits. Davitt also provided no other legal basis for having the costs prepaid, and his application to proceed without paying fees was still pending.
The court also said the earlier complaints were unlikely to answer the court’s request for specific allegations about money Davitt personally paid for medical bills. Judge Foster therefore denied Davitt’s motion.
The detailed version
- Davitt v. Chatholic Charities · No. 0:23-cv-03401
- Donovan Frank
- Jan. 24, 2024
Background
Michael Davitt moved for payment of the costs of copying two earlier complaints. He said he needed the copies to respond to the court’s order requiring him to provide information about his claims. The opinion refers to this request as a motion for costs of copies of previous complaints.
Davitt’s application to proceed without paying filing fees was still pending. The court considered whether the statute governing such applications, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, authorized prepayment of the requested copying costs.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that Section 1915 does not authorize payment of copying costs for filings consisting only of exhibits. It also stated that Davitt had offered no other legal basis for prepayment. In addition, the court explained that Davitt could not receive reimbursement under Section 1915 unless and until his application to proceed without paying filing fees was granted.
The court further observed that the requested earlier complaints were unlikely to respond to the order at issue. That order sought specific allegations about Davitt’s out-of-pocket costs for medical bills he paid in connection with his claims against the defendants.
Disposition
The court denied Davitt’s motion for costs of copies of previous complaints. This order addressed the copying-cost request and did not decide the underlying claims described in the opinion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.