Naseer, Hakim v. Belz, Thomas et al

Filing 110

ORDER denying 107 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 7/5/2017. (jef),(ps)

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

HAKIM NASEER,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
13-cv-821-jdp
THOMAS BELZ, C/O GALLINGER,
C/O WIEGEL, MARY MILLER,
SGT. WALLACE, CAPTAIN MASON,
and ELLEN RAY,
Defendants.

Pro se plaintiff Hakim Naseer brought claims that staff at the Wisconsin Secure
Program Facility staff retaliated against him for filing inmate grievances by contaminating his
food, and that they failed to provide him medical aid. In April 2016, I dismissed the case for
Naseer’s failure to respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, even after being
repeatedly prompted to file a response. See Dkt. 105.
Naseer has now filed a motion for sanctions against prison officials for their actions in
submitting the initial partial payment of his filing fee for this case in January 2014. Prison
officials not only deducted the $0.20 initial partial payment from Naseer’s release account, but
they also deducted $0.48 for postage from the release account. Naseer believes that prison
officials had no authority to deduct the funds for postage from his release account.
I will deny Naseer’s motion. Although this court on occasion litigates ancillary issues
relating to prison trust fund accounts, postage, and funds for legal materials within the context
of prisoner condition-of-confinement lawsuits, those issues are discussed only to the extent
they bear on a prisoner’s ability to pay the filing fee for the lawsuit or to exercise his right to
access the court. The alleged deprivation here had no effect on Naseer’s ability to access the

court, and this court does not usually interfere with the state’s interpretation of its release
account regulations, so there is no reason to discuss the postage issue within this lawsuit. Even
if the issue were proper to discuss, Naseer waited far too long to bring his motion: a year after
the case was dismissed and about three years after the alleged misdeed. Naseer’s proper recourse
would usually be to raise the issue informally with prison staff, file a prison grievance, or file a
brand-new lawsuit in state or federal court. It may be too late for Naseer to use some of these
options, and a brand-new lawsuit over a matter of 48 cents may not be the wisest use of his
resources. But I cannot entertain his motion in this long-closed lawsuit.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Hakim Naseer’s motion for sanctions, Dkt. 107, is
DENIED.
Entered July 5, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2