FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
July 31, 2014
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL A. FISCHER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 14-2032
v. (D.C. No. 1:12-CV-00673-JCH-CG)
(D. of N.M.)
CODY DUNNING, C.O.; DR.
DEMING; and PETER LARAIA, Head
of Medical Administration,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, TYMKOVICH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. **
Michael Fischer claims several officials of a state correctional facility,
where Fischer is currently serving time, were deliberately indifferent to his
medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. But, because Fischer
repeatedly refused to comply with a discovery order requiring him to disclose his
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
medical records, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the
suit. Finding that dismissal with prejudice is a proper sanction for violation of a
discovery order and that Fischer was not entitled to a court-appointed attorney,
we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
I. Background
Fischer is an inmate in a New Mexico correctional facility. He indicates
that he suffers from diabetes and accordingly informed prison officials that he
requires certain medical treatments—including injections, wheelchair transport,
an oxygen machine, diabetic hose, and appointments with a physician and certain
specialists.
Claiming he did not receive these treatments, Fischer sued several prison
officials, alleging that their deliberate indifference to his medical needs
constituted a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and
unusual punishment. Early in the proceedings, the district court dismissed the
claims against all but the two defendants responsible for his medical needs.
Fischer has not appealed that decision.
The district court then sought to evaluate the legal and factual basis for
Fischer’s claims and accordingly ordered the defendants to submit a Martinez
report assembling the record “necessary for the orderly consideration of the
issues” Fischer had raised. Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317, 319 (10th Cir.
1978). To allow the defendants to properly compile a Martinez report, the
-2-
defendants requested access to Fischer’s 2009 to 2012 medical records, but
Fischer refused.
The defendants then asked that the district court compel Fischer to
authorize release of the records. Fischer opposed the motion on the grounds that
he had not yet seen the records himself, arguing his medical providers
unconstitutionally charged fees to send him copies. But the district court
concluded that Fischer had failed to show any reason why his medical providers
should be required to produce his records at no cost, and, accordingly, the court
ordered Fischer to sign the release form.
Nevertheless, Fischer continued to argue throughout the proceedings that he
should not be compelled to provide access to his medical records before he had
either received free copies of those records or been temporarily released from
prison to review them in person. In several orders, the district court diligently
explained and reiterated why it found Fischer’s arguments unpersuasive and why
the defendants were entitled to see Fischer’s medical records.
Eventually, Fischer did partially fill out the appropriate release form, but he
left several spaces blank, including those for his initials and Social Security
number; additionally, he amended the form to limit the defendants’ access to
records created during the ten-month period while Fischer was in prison. 1
1
To his reply brief, Fischer has attached a consent to release medical
information, which he completed in 2013. But the release is limited to an
(continued...)
-3-
Arguing that Fischer had thereby disobeyed the court’s disclosure order in
violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b), the defendants moved to
dismiss Fischer’s suit with prejudice. In response, the district court entered an
order to show cause, which expressly warned Fischer that continued
noncompliance with the discovery order might result in dismissal of his suit.
Fischer’s response merely reiterated the same arguments the district court had
already addressed, and, as a result, the district court granted the defendants’
motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Throughout the district court proceedings, Fischer filed several motions
urging the district court to appoint counsel, which the district court denied,
finding that “[i]t does not appear that the legal claims raised in the Amended
Complaint are complex or that special knowledge of medical law is necessary. It
also appears that Plaintiff is capable of presenting his claims since the Amended
Complaint, provides a clear narrative regarding the alleged lack of necessary
medical care by Defendants.” Fischer v. Laraia, No. 12-0673 at *3 (D. N. M.
July 25, 2013).
1
(...continued)
individual New Mexico doctor for the purposes of evaluating and treating sleep
apnea. Thus, the consent form does not fulfill Fischer’s obligation to release his
records to the defendants in this case.
-4-
II. Analysis
Fischer appeals the dismissal and the decision not to appoint an attorney.
We address each issue in turn.
A. Discovery
Because Fischer proceeds pro se, we construe his filings broadly, see Hall
v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991), but “our role is not to act as his
advocate.” Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1067 (10th Cir. 2009).
Construing Fischer’s arguments as broadly as we may, we find that he has not
made any legal arguments on appeal challenging the district court’s decision to
dismiss this action. His brief lists the medical services he was allegedly denied,
asserts that certain prison officials were notified of his medical condition, and
argues that those officials violated the Eighth Amendment. But the question
before us on appeal is not whether Fischer received unsatisfactory medical care;
the only question before us here is whether dismissal of Fischer’s lawsuit was an
appropriate sanction for his failure to comply with a discovery order. Fischer’s
brief does not offer any arguments relevant to that inquiry.
Even if we were to interpret the mere act of appealing the district court’s
judgment as an argument that the court misapplied Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(b), Fischer would not prevail. “Determination of the correct
sanction for a discovery violation is a fact-specific inquiry that the district court
is best qualified to make. Therefore, we review the district court’s decision to
-5-
dismiss for discovery violations under an abuse of discretion standard.”
Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 920 (10th Cir. 1992).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) provides that, when a party “fails
to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,” the district court may “dismiss[]
the action in whole or in part.” But, in recognition “that dismissal represents an
extreme sanction appropriate only in cases of willful misconduct,” we assess
whether the district court considered several factors before taking such drastic
action: (1) the degree of actual prejudice to the defendant; (2) the amount of
interference with the judicial process; (3) the culpability of the litigant; (4)
whether the court warned the party in advance that dismissal of the action would
be a likely sanction for noncompliance; and (5) the efficacy of lesser sanctions.”
Ehrenhaus, 965 F.2d at 920–21 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Although these factors “do not constitute a rigid test,” the district court “should
ordinarily evaluate [them] on the record.” Id.
In this case, the district court, citing directly to Ehrenhaus, fairly
considered each of those factors. Regarding the first factor—the degree of actual
prejudice to the defendant—the district court 2 identified that, where a plaintiff
puts his physical health at issue, he must make a good faith effort to authorize the
release of relevant medical records. See D.N.M.LR-Civ. 26.3(d). And the district
2
For the purposes of this analysis, we do not distinguish between the
district court’s order and the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations,
which the district court reviewed de novo and adopted in their entirety.
-6-
court then explained that, without access to Fischer’s medical records, the
defendants were not able to meaningfully defend themselves against Fischer’s
claims, all of which concerned Fischer’s medical condition.
Before the district court, Fischer argued that his eventual decision to
release medical records created during the ten-month period he was in prison
satisfies his obligation. We disagree. Fischer’s claim hinges not only on the
prison’s provision of medical treatment but on the necessity of those treatments.
According to Fischer, his diabetes diagnosis and the prescription of the specific
treatments he requested preceded his incarceration, and, as a result, the
defendants need access to his pre-incarceration medical records in order to
dispute that they disregarded Fischer’s medical needs. Even after seven months
of discovery-related motions practice, Fischer has not provided those records.
Regarding the second factor—the amount of interference with the judicial
process—the district court noted that Fischer’s refusal to release his medical
history had entirely stalled the litigation. The district court thrice ordered Fischer
to sign the appropriate form, each time explaining why it was unpersuaded by
Fischer’s objections. Nevertheless, Fischer continued to make those same
arguments, asking the court to change its decision. Repeating this cycle was
costing time and judicial resources without creating any opportunity for the court
to resolve the dispute at hand.
-7-
Regarding the third factor—the culpability of the litigant—the district court
pointed to its redundant and clear instructions to fill out the form. On several
occasions, the district court had carefully explained why the defendants were
entitled to access Fischer’s medical records and why Fischer was not entitled to
first receive free copies of those records. Because Fischer had requested
appointed counsel, the district court also considered whether Fischer’s lack of
legal knowledge might be what was preventing him from complying with the
court’s order. But the court determined that the arguments in Fischer’s responses
show that he both received and comprehended the court’s orders; he simply
ignored those orders because he believed the court should have been persuaded by
his arguments. On that basis, the court correctly concluded that Fischer’s
noncompliance constituted willful misconduct.
Regarding the fourth factor—whether the court warned the party in advance
that dismissal of the action would be a likely sanction for noncompliance—the
court pointed to its order to show cause, which stated, “[i]f true, Defendants’
allegations provide a basis upon which Plaintiff may be subject to sanctions under
Rule 37, including dismissal of his case with prejudice.” Fischer v. Laraia, No.
12-0673 at *2 (D. N. M. Nov. 7, 2013). Although the court did not expressly
warn Fischer that dismissal would be the “likely” consequence of disobeying the
discovery order, the court made the possibility sufficiently clear.
-8-
Regarding the fifth factor—the efficacy of lesser sanctions—the court
found that no other remedy would be effective. The redundancy of Fischer’s
objections implies that he did not intend to comply until his demands for free
copies of his medical records had been met. Finding that monetary sanctions
would not likely be meaningful to a pro se inmate, the district court concluded
that it had no other tools to motivate Fischer to cooperate. Without Fischer’s
cooperation, the lawsuit could not move forward, and, as a result, dismissal was
proper.
In sum, the district court soundly concluded that all five Ehrenhaus factors
favored dismissal and, accordingly, that aggravating factors strongly outweighed
the judicial policy of resolving cases on the merits. As a result, even if Fischer
had properly challenged the district court’s legal analysis, we would hold that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Fischer’s lawsuit with
prejudice.
B. Motion for Court-Appointed Counsel
Although we accept Fischer’s assertion that he has been unable to fully
comprehend portions of the legal proceedings, Fischer has not made the showings
necessary to receive court-appointed counsel.
“We review a district court’s refusal to appoint counsel for an indigent
prisoner in a civil case for an abuse of discretion. . . . Only in those extreme cases
where the lack of counsel results in fundamental unfairness will the district
-9-
court’s decision be overturned.” Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d
1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2004). Unlike criminal defendants, civil claimants do not
have a Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel. See Beaudry v. Corr. Corp.
of Am., 331 F.3d 1164, 1169 (10th Cir. 2003). Instead, the court’s discretion to
appoint counsel stems from 28 U.S.C. § 1915. When we evaluate a district
court’s decision to deny such a motion, we consider “the merits of a prisoner’s
claims, the nature and complexity of the factual and legal issues, and the
prisoner’s ability to investigate the facts and present his claims.” Hill, 393 F.3d
at 1115.
In this case, the district court interpreted five of Fischer’s filings as
motions to appoint counsel. In those documents, Fischer argues that he should be
entitled to court-appointed counsel because he does not have any income and
because, aside from the offerings of the prison’s law library, he does not have
access to legal material. The district court denied each of those motions.
As we review the district court’s decision, we, like the district court, are
unable to evaluate the merits of his underlying claims—largely due to Fischer’s
refusal to release his medical records. We have, however, already addressed the
merits of his objections to the district court’s discovery order and concluded that
they are not persuasive.
Thus, the district court focused its analysis on Fischer’s capacity to
effectively present his claims. The court concluded that Fischer’s claims were not
-10-
particularly complex and that his filings had demonstrated that he had been able
to present them clearly. After reviewing Fischer’s filings, we, too, find that he
sufficiently described the medical services he needs and explained why he
believes the Eighth Amendment requires the defendants to provide them.
Although the district court denied Fischer’s motion for appointment of
counsel before addressing his failure to comply with the discovery order, we can
conclude from Fischer’s filings that he understood the discovery-related
proceedings as well. Further, he was able to clearly convey the reasons for which
he believed he should not have to release his medical records. The documents
Fischer filed after the court had imposed its discovery order demonstrate that,
despite his understanding of the court’s ruling and the court’s admonition that
noncompliance could result in dismissal, Fischer willfully flouted the court’s
instructions. We therefore conclude that the discovery issues were not
insurmountably complex and that Fischer was able to present his arguments.
The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Fischer’s
motions for appointed counsel. 3
III. Conclusion
Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Fischer
for noncompliance with its discovery order or in denying his motion to appoint
3
Appellant’s motion filed in this court for appointed counsel is denied.
-11-
counsel, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision to dismiss this action with
prejudice. Further, we note that the district court has already determined that
Fischer need not pay costs and fees in advance but must make partial payments
over time, and we remind Fischer that he is responsible for continuing to make
those payments.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Timothy M. Tymkovich
Circuit Judge
-12-