From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boulding v. Sudhir

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Apr 18, 2016
No. 15-12706 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 18, 2016)

Opinion

No. 15-12706

04-18-2016

TIMOTHY BOULDING, Plaintiff, v. BHAMINI SUDHIR, ET AL., Defendants.


District Judge Robert H. Cleland

ORDER

Plaintiff Timothy Boulding, a pro se prison inmate in this civil rights action, has filed a motion to compel discovery [Doc. #35], in large part seeking his medical records from the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC"), including x-rays. Plaintiff complains that the Defendants associated with Corizon Health, Inc., who have obtained some of the medical records, want him to pay ten cents per page for copies.

Defendants state in response [Doc. #36] that they have a portion (approximately 2,000 pages) of Plaintiff's MDOC medical records, and have provided him with 60 pages "from dates specifically identified by Plaintiff in his requests" at no charge. --------

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), and prepayment of the initial filing fee was waived [Doc. #3]. Although IFP status entitles Plaintiff to waiver of certain court costs, numerous cases hold that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not provide for payment of discovery costs, and a prisoner-plaintiff must fund his or her own litigation expenses. In Smith v. Yarrow, 78 Fed.Appx. 529, 544, 2003 WL 22400730, *13 (6th Cir. 2003), the Sixth Circuit stated:

"A prisoner plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis may seek a waiver of certain pretrial filing fees, but there is no constitutional or statutory
requirement that the government or Defendant pay for an indigent prisoner's discovery efforts. See Johnson v. Hubbard, 698 F.2d 286, 289 (6th Cir.1983) (holding that there is no constitutional or statutory requirement to waive an indigent prisoner plaintiff's costs of discovery)."
See also Hughes v. Friedman, 2013 WL 93177, *1 (D.Ariz. 2013)(even though Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C.1915(d), he is responsible for paying all fees and costs associated with subpoenas, including the costs of his own medical records"); Kershner v. Mazurkiewicz, 670 F.2d 440, 445 (3rd Cir.1982) (holding that even indigent prisoners are expected to pay for the incidental costs of their litigation).

So, Plaintiff may either obtain copies of his records from Corizon at ten cents per page, or pay the MDOC for copies of his records, with payment being deducted periodically from his prisoner account. See MDOC Policy Directive 03.04.108, ¶ S. In addition, Plaintiff has the right under federal law to inspect his MDOC medical records. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.524. Should he choose to inspect his medical file, he may be able to narrow the number of records that he needs to copy.

For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery [Doc. #35] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/R. Steven Whalen

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Date: April 18, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on April 18, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/Carolyn M. Ciesla

Case Manager to the

Honorable R. Steven Whalen


Summaries of

Boulding v. Sudhir

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Apr 18, 2016
No. 15-12706 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 18, 2016)
Case details for

Boulding v. Sudhir

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY BOULDING, Plaintiff, v. BHAMINI SUDHIR, ET AL., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Apr 18, 2016

Citations

No. 15-12706 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 18, 2016)