Wilson, Donald v. Gaanan, Carlo

Filing 15

ORDER that plaintiff may have until June 5, 2012 to provide authorization for the release of his mental health records and to submit to the court records supporting his claim that he cannot litigate this case himself. Defendants may have until June 12, 2012 to file a response. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 5/24/2012. (jef),(ps)

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

DONALD CHARLES WILSON,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
11-cv-725-bbc
DR. ASHLEY THOMPSON, DR. THOMAS J.
MICHLOWSKI, DR. JASON KOCINA, DR.
ALEXANDER STOLARSKI and DR. KEVIN
MCSORLEY,
Defendants.

DONALD CHARLES WILSON,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.

12-cv-114-bbc

DR. CARLO GAANAN,
Defendant.

In these two cases, plaintiff Donald W ilson has been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis
on claims that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to adequately treat a
thyroid condition and Alzheimer’s disease. The court has previous denied plaintiff’s motions for
appointment of counsel in these cases, but as the cases have progressed, it has become apparent
that counsel may be necessary. I terminated the April 24, 2012 telephonic preliminary pretrial
conference in case no. 11-cv-725-bbc because plaintiff was unable to communicate effectively with
the court. I directed the state to check with plaintiff's mental health care providers to see if they
had any reason to believe that plaintiff was presenting himself to the court as incompetent for
tactical reasons. Dkt. 23. I concluded that absent genuine doubt on this issue, the court would
stay that case in order to find counsel to represent plaintiff. Id.
The assistant attorney general has responded, indicating that it has somewhat limited
information because plaintiff has not returned an authorization to release medical information,

but stating that DOC medical personnel believe plaintiff “presents with a high index of suspicion
of exaggeration or outright fabrication of symptoms.” Dkt. 24. It may well be that plaintiff’s
medical records will not provide more guidance than this statement, but I see little reason to
appoint counsel for plaintiff in these cases for medical reasons without making deeper inquiry into
this issue. Accordingly, I will give plaintiff a short time to sign an authorization form regarding
his mental health issues, and to submit any medical records he believes shows that he cannot
litigate this case himself. Defendants will have a chance to respond with medical records following
plaintiff’s authorization.
Plaintiff is not required to release his medical/mental health records if he wishes to keep
them confidential, but this choice would have consequences in these lawsuits. If plaintiff chooses
not to authorize release of his mental health records, the court will consider declining to appoint
counsel, as well as dismissing case no. 11-cv-725-bbc because defendants will not be able to
defend this case without access to this medical information.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff may have until June 5, 2012 to provide authorization for
the release of his mental health records and to submit to the court records supporting his claim
that he cannot litigate this case himself. Defendants may have until June 12, 2012 to file a
response.
Entered this 24 th day of May, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

2