Williams, Roosevelt v. Anderson, Trish et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying plaintiff Roosevelt M. Williams's 17 motion regarding the denial of legal loans. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 10/29/2018. (jef),(ps)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ROOSEVELT M. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. ORDER TRISH ANDERSON, SHANE ZAHRTE, and LUCAS WOGERNESE, 17-cv-304-jdp Defendants. Plaintiff Roosevelt M. Williams, appearing pro se, is an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution. Williams brings this lawsuit alleging that defendant prison officials canceled a prescription for ice used to treat his gout. Williams has filed a motion regarding legal-loan funds, stating that prison officials incorrectly interpreted state law in denying him a loan. Dkt. 17. Generally, this court does not interfere with the Department of Corrections’ administration of legal loans. See Gruenberg v. Tetzlaff, No. 13-cv-95-wmc, 2014 WL 3735875, at *5 (W.D. Wis. July 29, 2014). In other circumstances I might ask the state to explain how it is ensuring that Williams has adequate legal materials so that he has access to the court. But that does not appear to be a problem for Williams: he has filed several lawsuits over the past few years, along with various motions and other submissions in most of them. In his current motion he does not explain how he has been blocked from litigating this lawsuit. So I will deny his motion. He is free to renew his motion but he will have to explain what specific tasks that he cannot accomplish as a result of the legal loan denial. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Roosevelt M. Williams’s motion regarding the denial of legal loans, Dkt. 17, is DENIED. Entered October 29, 2018. BY THE COURT: /s/ ________________________________________ JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?