# Greene v. Lassiter

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · April 22, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10261025

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** April 22, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10261025

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10261025. Public record. Not legal advice.