Jones v. McClain

Filing 42

ORDER signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 3/30/18 denying 40 Motion to Compel. (cc: all counsel and via US Mail to Jermel Jones) (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JERMEL JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-C-1523

RYAN MCCLAIN,
Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff Jermel Jones, an inmate currently serving a state prison sentence at Waupun
Correctional Institution (WCI), filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his
civil rights. This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. ECF
No. 40. Plaintiff explains that on February 3, 2018, he signed a form giving Defendant consent to
access his medical records and on February 8, 2018, he served discovery requests on Defendant.
Defendant provided all requested documents, except that Defendant objected to delivering Plaintiff
copies of his medical records on the grounds that Plaintiff has access to them at WCI. Plaintiff
states that, although he may inspect his medical records, he must pay $0.15 per page to make copies
of them. Because he does not have sufficient funds to make copies of his records, he seeks to
compel Defendant to provide him with a copy of them.
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 (7th Cir. 2003) (first quoting Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526,
528 (7th Cir. 2002); then citing Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir. 1998)). Accordingly,

the fact that Plaintiff does not have sufficient funds to pay for copies of his medical records does
not mean that this court must compel Defendant to provide him with a copy. Moreover, there is no
indication that Plaintiff lacks access to his records. Although it may be more convenient for him
to litigate this case using copies of his records, nothing apparently prevents him from inspecting
them as needed and taking detailed notes for his personal use in preparing legal documents.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 40) is therefore DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 30th

day of March, 2018.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2