Opinion

Greene v. Lassiter

Court
District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Filed
Apr 22, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.9%

“The established rule is that the expenditure of public funds is proper only when authorized by Congress….”

How later courts described this case

  • “The established rule is that the expenditure of public funds is proper only when authorized by Congress….”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

ASHEVILLE DIVISION

CIVIL CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00224-MR

COREY DELON GREENE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) ORDER

)

)

KENNETH LASSITER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

___________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Copies.

[Doc. 113].

Pro se Plaintiff Corey Delon Greene (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner of the

State of North Carolina, currently incarcerated at New Hanover Correctional

Center in Wilmington, North Carolina. On July 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed this

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Kenneth Lassiter,

Tim Moose, Todd Ishee, Sarah Cobb, Betty Brown, and Chris Rich claiming

his rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, were

violated while he was incarcerated at Avery/Mitchell Correctional Institution

in Spruce Pine, North Carolina, because Defendants refused to recognize

the Nation of Gods and Earth (“NGE”) as a religion and classified NGE as a

Security Risk Group (SRG) for over 20 years. [Doc. 1]. The Court granted

summary judgment for Defendants [Doc. 83] and the Fourth Circuit vacated

the Court’s entry of summary judgment and remanded for further

proceedings. Greene v. Lassiter, No. 22-6273, 2023 WL 8618519 (4th Cir.

Dec. 13, 2023).

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting that the Court

send him copies of Defendants’ recent filing in this matter [see Doc. 110:

Notice of Supplemental Authority] because “[h]e has not receved [sic] a copy

from the defendants.” [Doc. 113]. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for

copies. Plaintiff failed to include payment for the copies he requests. A

litigant is ordinarily required to pay his own litigation expenses, even if he is

indigent. See United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976) (“The

established rule is that the expenditure of public funds is proper only when

authorized by Congress….”). The Court is not a copying service. If Plaintiff

needs copies of documents filed in the docket in this matter, he may pay for

the copies he seeks at the standard rate of $.50 per page. See

https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/court-fees. The Court will, however, direct

Defendants to consult their records to ensure that their Notice of

Supplemental Authority was served on Plaintiff as reflected in the Certificate

of Service attached thereto.

ORDER

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Copies [Doc.

113] is DENIED.

The Court instructs Defendants to consult their records to ensure that

proper service of the Notice of Supplemental Authority [Doc. 110] was made

on Plaintiff and to timely effect service thereof if necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: April 22, 2024

Martifi Reidinger ey

Chief United States District Judge “AES

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.