United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
OPINION AND ORDER
BARBARA B. CRABB District Judge.
plaintiff Donta Jenkins is proceeding on claims that
correctional staff at the Eau Claire County jail subjected
him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement and that
mental health staff at the jail denied him treatment and
medication for a mood disorder. (I have updated the caption
to reflect the correct spelling of defendants' names.)
Now before the court are several motions filed by plaintiff,
including three motions to compel, dkt. ## 54, 65 and 69, and
two renewed motions for assistance in recruiting counsel,
dkt. ##53 and 66. For the reasons below, I am denying all of
Motions to Compel Discovery
April 16 and May 2, 2019, plaintiff filed motions to compel
defendants to produce the following evidence:
• Plaintiff's mental health records from September
6, 2017 through June 19, 2018, including progress notes and
reports from “Dr. Ken” and other providers and
orders and dispensing records for all of his medications.
• Video footage of the three days that plaintiff was
housed in a suicide watch cell and any other video footage
showing defendants' contact with plaintiff during the
period at issue.
• All “Spellman log entries” and the
contacts of the defendants.
• Jail policies and procedures regarding placement for
mentally ill inmates threatening suicide and mental health
treatment and services for inmates.
Dkt. ##54, 65. On May 8, 2019, plaintiff filed a third motion
to compel, asking that the court order defendants to respond
to various requests for admission and interrogatories because
they had not yet done so. Dkt. #69.
motions will be denied because defendants either have already
responded to plaintiff's requests or the deadline for
defendants' responses has not yet passed. In addition,
Plaintiff did not meet and confer with any of the defendants
before filing his motions, as he is required to do under
Mental health records
staff defendants Sergeant Field, Sergeant Kastel, Officer
Reischel, Officer Turner, Officer Pollard and Officer
Bergevin state that they told plaintiff that they are not the
custodians of plaintiff's medical records, which must be
obtained through Correct Care Solutions. In October 2018,
defendants provided plaintiff a medical authorization form
and instructions on how to complete and submit it.
their part, medical defendants Sharon Besterfeldt, Dr.
Kenechi Anuligo, Kelsey Siverling, AnnMarie Geiss and Denise
Hurless state that they will produce a list of the
medications that plaintiff was prescribed, but they object to
producing plaintiff's full mental health file-which is
over 400 pages-at their expense. Defendants are correct that
they are under no obligation to provide plaintiff free copies
of his medical records. Lindell v. McCallum, 352
F.3d 1107, 1111 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[A] prisoner has no
constitutional entitlement to a subsidy to prosecute a civil
suit; like any other civil litigant, he must decide which of
his legal actions is important enough to fund.”);
Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir. 1998)
(“All § 1915 has ever done is excuse pre-payment
of the docket fees; a litigant remains liable for them, and
for other costs”); Stewart v. Barr, 2005 WL
6166745, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 30, 2005) (“[D]efendants
have no obligation to provide plaintiff with free copies of
his medical records.”). As stated in the preliminary