Block v. United States Government
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-00127
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Block v. United States Government, Judge Docherty denied Waylen Block’s discovery request without prejudice because a motion to dismiss was pending.
The ruling directly affected Waylen Block’s request to obtain medical records through discovery. It temporarily prevented discovery from beginning and preserved the possibility of later discovery if the case survived the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Block v. United States Government, Waylen Block, who was representing himself, asked to begin discovery to obtain medical records for his lawsuit against the Bureau of Prisons and other defendants.
Block sought records including retinal scans, contractor records, and dialysis records. The defendants opposed discovery before they had answered, and all named defendants later moved to dismiss.
Judge John F. Docherty denied Block’s motion without prejudice as premature. The court said it would first decide the motion to dismiss and issue a scheduling order with discovery deadlines if the case survived.
The detailed version
- Block v. United States Government · No. 0:23-cv-00127
- John Tunheim
- Feb. 9, 2024
Background
Waylen Block, a self-represented prisoner, sued the Bureau of Prisons and other named defendants. He asked for permission to begin discovery so he could obtain medical records for the lawsuit. His requested records included retinal scans, records from prison medical contractors, dialysis records, hospital records, and records from eye and kidney specialists.
Block had requested the records from Bureau of Prisons Health Services. Health Services said it would print the records for approximately $90 and stated that it was not denying his request for access. Block said he already had paper copies of most of his Bureau of Prisons medical records and primarily needed missing records, including contractor records, color retinal scans, and dialysis records.
Reasoning
The court explained that the ordinary rule generally prevents discovery before the parties confer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The rule does not apply in the same way to a case brought without an attorney by a person in federal custody. Instead, the timing of discovery would be governed by a scheduling order.
The court found good cause to delay issuing a scheduling order because the defendants had filed a motion to dismiss. If the case were resolved on that motion, discovery completed beforehand could be wasted. The court also stated that it would decide the motion to dismiss based on the operative complaints, materials necessarily embraced by those complaints, and the parties’ legal arguments. Block did not need to submit his medical records for the court to decide that motion.
Ruling
The court denied Block’s Motion for Permission to Engage in Discovery, docket number 35, without prejudice as premature. The court stated that if the case survived the motion to dismiss, it would evaluate whether a pretrial conference was necessary and issue a scheduling order containing discovery deadlines. Block could later make discovery requests that complied with that order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.