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

Filing 39

ORDER denying plaintiff Alfredo Vega's Motions for Use of Release Account Funds filed by Alfredo Vega. The state may have until July 19, 2017, to show cause why this court should not order the provision of legal supplies necessary to litigate the case. Plaintiff may have until July 24, 2017, to file a response. 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

ALFREDO VEGA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN MORGAN and GWEN SCHULTZ,

ORDER
16-cv-573-jdp

Defendants.
ALFREDO VEGA,
Plaintiff,
v.
LUCUS WEBER and LINDSEY WALKER,

ORDER
17-cv-116-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Alfredo Vega, a prisoner at the Green Bay Correctional Institution, is litigating
two cases against prison officials in this court. He has filed a motion in both cases for an order
directing prison officials to allow him the use of release account funds to pay for copies and
postage. He states that officials have denied him the use of release account funds and an
extension of his legal loan funds, and as a result, he will not be able to fully present evidence
in support of his claims. In particular, he says that he will not be able to oppose defendants’
summary judgment motion in case no. 16-cv-573. (Defendants have not yet actually filed a
summary judgment motion in that case, but it seems likely that they eventually will.)
I will deny Vega’s motion for an order mandating use of his release account funds. It is
up to prison officials to decide how to apply the release-account regulations; this federal court
generally cannot tell state officials how to apply state law. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). There is no federal law permitting this court to require state
officials to allow prisoner use of release account funds for litigation costs. It is only when a
prisoner’s general account has insufficient funds to make an initial partial filing fee payment
that the Prison Litigation Reform Act permits this court to order an institution to access a
prisoner’s release account funds to satisfy that payment. See, e.g., Mosby v. Wommack, No. 08cv-677, 2009 WL 2488011 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 12, 2009) (“[W]ith the exception of initial partial
payments, [federal district courts] do not have the authority to tell state officials whether and
to what extent a prisoner should be able to withdraw money from his release account.”); see also
Artis v. Meisner, No. 12-cv-589, 2015 WL 5749785, at *5-6 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 30, 2015)
(“Absent some authority requiring the prison to disburse [petitioner’s] release account funds,
the court declines to interfere in the administration of Wisconsin state prisons . . . .” (emphasis
in original)).
Nonetheless, the Constitution guarantees prisoners the right to have “meaningful access
to the courts,” Lehn v. Holmes, 364 F.3d 862, 868 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting Bounds v. Smith,
430 U.S. 817, 823 (1977)), and part of this right is that “indigent inmates must be provided
at state expense with paper and pen to draft legal documents with notarial services to
authenticate them, and with stamps to mail them.” Bounds, 430 U.S. at 824-25.1 Whether this
comes from legal loans or some other source is generally not the court’s concern. Ripp v. Nickel,
838 F. Supp. 2d 861, 865 (W.D. Wis. 2012) (“It is up to defendant how he insures that

1

Postage, at least for Vega’s court filings, should no longer be a concern, because prisoners at
GBCI are required to give their court documents to the librarian to be electronically transmitted
to the court.

2

plaintiff receives those materials, that is, whether he lends plaintiff the funds he needs to
purchase the materials himself or simply provides the materials to plaintiff.”).
Thus, it is likely that the state must provide Vega with at least minimal legal materials,
whether through the legal loan mechanism or otherwise. I will have defendants show cause why
I should not order that Vega be provided legal supplies reasonably necessary to litigate his
cases.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Alfredo Vega’s motion for the use of release account funds is DENIED.
2. The state may have until July 19, 2017, to show cause why this court should not
order the provision of legal supplies necessary to litigate the case. Plaintiff may have
until July 24, 2017, to file a response.
Entered July 5, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3