Tessen v. HELGERSON et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 22 Motion for Extension of Legal Loan and for Sanctions. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 5/24/2010. (eds),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ROBERT W. TESSEN, Plaintiff, v. S T EV E HELGERSON, NANCY HAHNISCH, DARCI BURRESON, JENNIFER NICKEL and N AT AL IE NEWMAN, Defendants. ORDER 10-cv-104-wmc

Presently before the court is plaintiff Robert Tessen's motion for an extension of his legal loan and to sanction the warden of Columbia Correctional Institution, for refusing to extend Tessen's legal loan and blocking Tessen's access to this court. Tessen's motion will be denied. U nd er Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.51, an inmate's "loan limit may be exceeded w ith the superintendent's approval if the inmate demonstrates an extraordinary need, such as a court order requiring submission of specified documents." Whether plaintiff can con vince prison officials to find extraordinary circumstances warranting an extension of this legal loan limit is not a matter for this court to decide. In Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1111 (7th Cir. 2003), the Court of Appeals fo r the Seventh Circuit held that federal district courts in Wisconsin were under no obligation to order the state of Wisconsin to lend prisoners more money than they are au th orized to receive under Wis. Adm. Code § DOC 309.51. In reaching this conclusion, the court of appeals stated, The Wisconsin statute is not intended for the funding of prisoners' suits--as explained in the Luedtke [v. Bertrand, 32 F.Supp.2d 1074, 1076 (E.D .W is.1999 )] case, the loans authorized by the statute are not "funds

w hich are disbursed or credited to an inmate's account to be used as he wishes" b ut rather "simultaneous credits and debits ... for the sole purpose of enabling p riso n ers to purchase 'paper, photocopy work, or postage' on credit." And L indell has "no constitutional entitlement to subsidy," Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3 d 526, 528 (7th Cir.2002), to prosecute a civil suit; like any other civil litigant, he must decide which of his legal actions is important enough to fund. L ucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir.1998). If he is able to convince W i s c on sin to extend him more credit for his legal endeavors, in apparent vio latio n of Wisconsin law, any debt arising from that extension of credit will be a matter strictly between him and Wisconsin, and not any business of the federal courts. Id. This court will not order the state of Wisconsin to lend prisoners more money or p ap er than they are authorized to receive under § DOC 309.51. Additionally, the question w h eth er Tessen's right of access to the courts is being blocked by the failure of prison o fficials to extend Tessen's legal loan is not an issue that was raised in Tessen's underlying com plaint. It is a new claim of constitutional wrongdoing that Tessen is asserting against perso ns who may or may not be parties to this lawsuit, and thus not a claim properly raised in the context of this lawsuit. T here is one situation in which the court may take up the matter of court access in the context of a pending lawsuit, though not applicable to the underlying complaint here. If a prison official were actively and physically to block a plaintiff's ability to come to trial or defend against a motion filed by the defendants, the court may ask defendants' counsel to look into the matter and report the circumstances to the court. This authority to

entertain an issue that was not formally raised in the complaint stems from the court's inh erent powers to exercise administrative control over the progress of the suits submitted to it for adjudication.
2

E ven if this court believed it appropriate to question prison officials' decisions r e gard in g the use of legal loan funds for a particular inmate (which it is not doing here), T essen would have to provide far more information than he has regarding his attempts to extend his legal loan. Tessen will have to do the best he can with the limited resources he h as. Like any other person on a tight budget, Tessen must make careful choices about how he uses the remainder of his legal loan. Because Tessen has made no showing that he is entitled to the order he seeks, his motion will be denied.

OR DER IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Robert Tessen's motion for an extension of his legal lo an and for sanctions, dkt. #22, is DENIED. E n tered this 24t h day of May, 2010. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ W IL L IA M M. CONLEY D istrict Judge

3