Parker v. Lash et al

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 5/1/2017 DENYING 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Order Permitting Access to Release Account Funds. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Antonio Lee Parker at Waupun Correctional Institution) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ANTONIO LEE PARKER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-CV-1231-JPS

C.O. LASH, BRIAN FOSTER,
WILLIAM POLLARD, P. A. KROLL,
LT. WALTER, CAPT. MARKIEWCZ,
DR. B, PAUL LUDVIGSON, TONY MELI,
JEMERY WESTRA, DONALD STRAHOTA,
KYLE K. TRITT, LT. SCHNEIDER,
D. JONES, ANNETTE MILLER,
MS. JOHNSON, CAPTAIN TOMAS CORE,
S. STOBB, JAMES MUENCHOW,
CAPTAIN RADTKE, C.O. CLARK,
SGT. BLAKE, SGT. PRICE, JON LITSCHER,
EDWARD WALL, CINDY O'DONNELL,
JAMES R. SCHWOCHERT,
CAPTAIN OLSON, and JOHN DOES 1-4,

ORDER

Defendants.
On April 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to utilize his release account
funds to pay the remainder of his filing fee. (Docket #18). Plaintiff paid the
initial partial filing fee (“IPFF”) of $5.84, and does not state what balance of
the full fee ($350.00) remains owed. Id. While it is true that this Court has the
authority to order disbursements from a prisoner’s release account for
payment of an IPFF, see, e.g., Doty v. Doyle, 182 F.Supp.2d 750, 751 (E.D. Wis.
2002) (noting that “both the Wisconsin Prison Litigation Reform Act…and
the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act [(“PLRA”)]…authorize the courts
to order that…a prisoner’s release account be made available [to pay an
IPFF]”), this Court lacks the authority—statutory or otherwise—to order that
a prisoner may tap into his release account to pay current (or future)

litigation costs. Cf. Wilson v. Anderson, No. 14-CV-0798, 2014 WL 3671878, at
*3 (E.D. Wis. July 23, 2014) (declining to order that a prisoner’s full filing
fee be paid from his release account, “[g]iven the [DOC’s] rationale for
segregating funds into a release account” and the absence of any statutory
authority compelling the court to do so).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, denying prisoners the use of their
release accounts to fund litigation costs is also prudent given that those
accounts are “restricted account[s] maintained by the [DOC] to be used upon
the prisoner’s release from custody.” Id. Permitting a prisoner to invade that
account for litigation costs could be a detriment to that prisoner’s likelihood
of success post-incarceration, see Wis. Adm. Code. § DOC 309.466 (stating
that disbursements from a prisoner’s release account are authorized “for
purposes that will aid the inmate’s reintegration into the community”),
especially if the prisoner is overly litigious. As the Seventh Circuit has
instructed, “like any other civil litigant, [a prisoner] must decide which of
[his] legal actions is important enough to fund,” Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d
1107, 1111 (7th Cir. 2003); thus, if a prisoner concludes that “the limitations
on his funds prevent him from prosecuting [a] case with the full vigor he
wishes to prosecute it, he is free to choose to dismiss it voluntarily and bring
it at a later date.” Williams v. Berge, No. 02-CV-10, 2002 WL 32350026, at *8
(W.D. Wis. Apr. 30, 2002). He is not free, however, to tap into his release
account to cover those legal costs. In light of the foregoing, the Court will
deny Plaintiff’s motion to use release account funds to pay the balance of his
filing fee.

Page 2 of 3

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for an order permitting
access to his release account funds (Docket #18) be and the same is hereby
DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 1st day of May, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3