Berry v. Lutsey et al

Filing 140

ORDER signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 8/28/18 denying 138 Motion for Order for Enforcement and denying 139 Motion for Order Compelling Defendants to Approve Legal Loan.. (cc: all counsel and via US Mail to Christopher Berry, Warden and PLRA Attorney USCA) (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

CHRISTOPHER BERRY,
Plaintiff,
v.

USDC Case No. 17-C-551
USCA Case No. 18-2614

JEAN LUTSEY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

On July 19, 2018, the Court issued an order granting the Defendants’ motions for summary
judgment and dismissed this action. ECF No. 118. Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se,
subsequently appealed the decision. ECF No. 127. The case is before the Court on two motions
Plaintiff has since filed: a “Motion of Enforcement” (ECF No. 138) and a “Motion Compelling
Defendants To Approve Legal Loan” (ECF No. 136). Though it is not entirely clear, it appears that
the first motion seeks enforcement of the court’s order authorizing payment of Plaintiff’s initial
partial filing fee for his appeal from his release account. The amount assessed should be paid to the
Clerk of the District Court. Fed. R. App. P. 3(e). The second motion seeks approval of a legal loan.
From the attached disbursement requests, it appears Plaintiff seeks funds for postage for materials
he seeks to send to a law firm, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, and the Court of Appeals.
In general, “[t]he filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it
confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those
aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S.

56, 58 (1982). Payment of the initial partial filing fee is not an aspect of the case at issue in the
appeal, and the court has already authorized payment of Plaintiff’s initial partial filing fee from his
release account. Absent any additional requirement of which the court is unaware, the disbursement
officer at GBCI should forward the amount determined, $1.20, to the Clerk of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin .
“[A] prisoner has no constitutional entitlement to subsidy to prosecute a civil suit; like any
other civil litigant, he must decide which of his legal actions is important enough to fund.” Lindell
v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1111 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Prisoners do not
have a legal entitlement to a loan, and it is “wholly within the Department of Corrections’ authority
to grant or deny the loan,” so long as it is not denied for malicious reasons. Johnson v. Baenen,
2013 WL 1130459 at *4 (E.D. Wis. 2013). Here, based on the copies of disbursement requests
submitted by Plaintiff, his requests for a legal loan were denied, at least in part, because he did not
include addressed envelopes, in addition to there being no approval for his appellate case number on
file.
Regarding any extent to which the loan was denied because prison officials did not have
relevant documents from the Court, they are directed to the Court’s order (ECF No. 136) granting
Plaintiff’s motion in part directing the payment of his initial partial filing fee for his appeal to be paid
out of his release account, as well as the notice of docketing (ECF No. 127) of Plaintiff’s appeal to
the Seventh Circuit that lists his appellate case number as 18-2614.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion Compelling
Defendants To Approve Legal Loan” (ECF No. 139) and “Motion of Enforcement” (ECF No.
138) are DENIED.
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this order be sent to the officer in charge of
the agency where the inmate is confined.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be sent to PLRA Attorney,
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Rm. 2722,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Dated this 28th day of August, 2018.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

3