IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
October 6, 2009
JIMMIE GHOLSON, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Clifford J. Proud U. S. Magistrate Judge
PROUD, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff's "Motion for a Emerency Preuminary Injunction" [sic], seeking a CT scan or MRI of his head in order to prove how much damage was done by the defendants' denial of medical care over 5 years. (Doc. 124). In response, the defendants argue that: (1) plaintiff has failed to meet the standard for injunctive relief; (2) plaintiff is merely demanding tests to prove his claims in this action; and (3) none of the defendants are in a position to order a CT or MRI. (Doc. 125).
Despite its caption, the Court construes the subject motion as merely seeking discovery. Plaintiff is indigent and has been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. However, he has no right to have his litigation funded by the defendants or by the public. Johnson v. Daley, 339 F.3d 582, 586 (7th Cir. 2003). Third parties, such as the Bureau of Prisons, are not required to provide free services to facilitate litigation; the Court lacks authority for such cost-shifting. Ivey v. Harney 47 F.3d 181, 185 (7th Cir. 1995). Similarly, the defendants are not required to bear the cost and burden of conducting such tests, which plaintiff acknowledges are solely for use in this action.
According to plaintiff, medical authorities at USP-Terre Haute and Adx-Max USP-Florence, and a Bureau of Prisons committee have declined to perform corrective surgery. If plaintiff takes issue with the decision(s) to deny him surgery, that may be fodder for another law suit, but it is not something that can be addressed in the present action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the subject motion (Doc. 124) is DENIED in all respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.