Vega, Alfredo v. Columbia Corr. Inst. et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying plaintiff's 13 motion to compel discovery and denying plaintiff's 4 , 13 motions for use of his release account funds. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 2/6/2017. (jef),(ps)

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

ALFREDO VEGA,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CAPTAIN MORGAN and
CAPTAIN GWEN SCHULTZ,

16-cv-573-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Alfredo Vega is proceeding on claims that defendants Captain Morgan and
Gwen Schultz violated his rights to due process when they found him guilty of violations of
prison regulations following an incident in which he was attacked by another inmate at the
Columbia Correctional Institution.
Vega has filed a letter stating that he has filed discovery requests with the court “for
the reason so plaintiff would be able to amend his complaint by adding the correctional
security officers who had close observation of this incident/assault . . . .” Dkt. 13, at 1. It is
unclear exactly what Vega is asking this court to do in response to his letter. But I will say
that because it is still early in the case, Vega is free to submit an amended complaint restating
his claims against defendants Morgan and Schultz, and including new claims against
defendant prison officials who failed to protect him from the attack. But he should do so
promptly.
From Vega’s letter, it appears that he still does not know the identity of each
responsible official, but that is not a reason for him to hold off on filing an amended
complaint. The caption of his amended complaint should include the name of each official
who violated his rights, and the body of the complaint should explain each person’s role in

failing to protect him. For those officials Vega cannot yet identity, he should refer to these
individuals as “John Doe No. 1,” “John Doe No. 2,” and so on.
The court usually instructs a plaintiff in Vega’s position on how to use the discovery
process to figure out the identities of the Doe defendants. But it appears that he is already
using the discovery process to do so. In Vega’s letter, he seems to be asking the court to
compel defendants to his discovery requests, but I will deny that request. I cannot consider
whether to compel responses to discovery requests without knowing (1) how the responding
party responded to the requests; and (2) why Vega believes those responses are inadequate.
Vega should make all the discovery requests he thinks are necessary to reveal the identities of
the officials who failed to protect him, and then file a motion to compel if he does not believe
that the responding party has properly responded.
In his letter, Vega also asks that when defendants respond to his discovery requests,
the cost of copying various documents be paid for using funds from his release account. This
echoes Vega’s earlier motion for a court order directing the prison business office to pay off
the reminder of his failing fee from his release account funds. Dkt. 4. I set briefing on that
motion, but the state did not respond.
That does not mean that I can grant Vega’s motion as unopposed. Vega’s motion is
premised on Wisconsin statutes and regulations concerning use of release account funds, and
the fact that he is serving a life sentence, which raises the question whether his release
account is pointless. But regardless whether it is wise to force Vega to sock away funds in a
release account, I cannot tell state officials how to apply state law. Pennhurst State Sch. &
Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). The issue is what authority I have to order the
business office to change their methods for withdrawing funds from a prisoner’s accounts.

2

The only authority I am aware of concerning this power is the federal Prison
Litigation Reform Act, which states that this court “shall . . . collect . . . an initial partial filing
fee . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). It also states that prisoners “shall be required to make
monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s
account.” Section 1915(b)(2). This statute does not give this court authority to direct the
state to apply release account funds toward the costs of copies. See Artis v. Meisner, No. 12-cv589-wmc, 2015 WL 5749785, at *6 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 30, 2015) (“The court recognizes that
Wisconsin has taken a more liberal approach in ordering the payment of litigation-related
fees from release accounts, but that distinction is justified by the textual differences between
the Wisconsin PLRA and the federal PLRA.”). Nor does it suggest that the court may force
the state to pay the remainder of his filing fee in a lump sum directly from his release account
instead of from his regular account. Accordingly, I will deny Vega’s motions concerning his
release account funds.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Alfredo Vega’s motion to compel discovery, Dkt. 13, is DENIED without
prejudice.
2. Plaintiff’s motions for use of his release account funds, Dkt. 4 & 13, are DENIED.
Entered February 6, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3