govinfo:USCOURTS-wiwd-3_22-cv-00178-9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN 
  
 
ROBERT EARL ALEXANDER, 
 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
MCKALA NITZKE and PATRICK MURPHY, 
 
Defendants. 
OPINION and ORDER 
 
25-cv-574-jdp 
 
 
ROBERT EARL ALEXANDER, 
 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 
 
Defendant. 
OPINION and ORDER 
 
26-cv-59-jdp 
 
 
Plaintiff Robert Alexander, proceeding without counsel, is a prisoner at Dodge 
Correctional Institution. In case no. 25- cv-574-jdp, Alexander alleges that the prison medical 
staff prevented him from attending an offsite cancer screening. ’574 case, Dkt. 23. In case no. 
26-cv-59-jdp, Alexander alleges that the Wisconsin Department of Corrections has refused to 
communicate with him in writing to accommodate his inability to hear and speak.  ’59 case, 
Dkt. 14. 
Alexander has filed motions for preliminary injunctions in both cases. In the ’574 case, 
Alexander says that prison staff are still preventing him from attending offsite cancer treatment 
appointments, and he asks for an injunction  requiring prison staff to take him to those 
appointments. ’574 case, Dkt. 34. In the ’59 case, he asks for an injunction requiring prison 
Case: 3:22-cv-00178-jdp     Document #: 157     Filed: 06/12/26     Page 1 of 7
2 
 
staff to communicate with him in writing. ’59 case, Dkt. 7; Dkt. 12; Dkt. 13. I ordered 
defendants to respond to both preliminary injunction motions. 
Defendants have now filed a motion explaining that they cannot respond to the 
preliminary injunction motions because Alexander has refused to sign medical authorization 
forms allowing them to access relevant medical records . ’574 case, Dkt. 34 and  ’59 case, 
Dkt. 21. This order addresses the medical authorization form issue, as well as multiple motions 
filed by Alexander. 
A. Medical authorization form 
Defendants have asked Alexander to sign a medical records authorization form so that 
defendants can obtain medical records that they need to respond to Alexander’s preliminary 
injunction motions. ’574 case, Dkt. 39-1. Alexander refused to sign the authorization forms, 
telling defendants’ counsel that the form was “vague,” ’574 case, Dkt. 36, at 3, and that “there 
are certain records I oppose to release.” ’574 case, Dkt. 36-1, at 11. Defendants now move for 
an order authorizing HIPAA-covered entities to turn over Alexander’s medical records and they 
also ask for an extension of time to respond to the preliminary injunction motions. ’574 case, 
Dkt. 34 and ’59 case, Dkt. 21. 
Alexander will have to turn over relevant medical records if he wishes to obtain 
preliminary relief or otherwise proceed with his cases. But I will not compel him to turn over 
any medical records, nor will I issue an order allowing defendants to access his medical records 
without his authorization. If Alexander would rather maintain the privacy of his medical 
information, he is free to do so. But  it would be unfair to defendants to defend against 
Alexander’s claims without access to the relevant  medical information. Alexander’s choice is 
Case: 3:22-cv-00178-jdp     Document #: 157     Filed: 06/12/26     Page 2 of 7
3 
 
either to share the relevant information with defendants or to have his preliminary injunction 
motions denied, and ultimately, his cases dismissed. 
But the key word here is relevant. Alexander doesn’t have to sign an unreasonably broad 
authorization allowing for access to medical information unlikely to be relevant. Defendants 
have asked Alexander to sign an authorization for essentially his entire medical file, including 
psychological and psychiatric records, alcohol and drug treatment records, and HIV or AIDS 
test results. ’574 case, Dkt. 39-1, at 6–8. Defendants do not explain why they need access to 
such a broad range of information, and I can see no reason why such information would be 
relevant to Alexander’s claims about his cancer treatment and his communication difficulties. 
Defendants should make another effort to obtain an authorization from Alexander, 
which should be limited in scope to information relevant to Alexander’s claims and his motions 
for preliminary injunctions. The motions for an extension of time to respond to the preliminary 
injunction motions are granted. Defendants should  inform the court promptly, but no later 
than June 22, 2026, that they have obtained a medical authorization  from Alexander. If 
Alexander continues to refuse, defendants have until June 22 to file an opposition brief to 
Alexander’s preliminary injunction motions based on his failure to sign a medical authorization. 
If Alexander signs the authorization, defendants will have seven days from when he signs the 
authorizations to respond to the preliminary injunction motions. Alexander will then have 14 
days to reply. 
B. Alexander’s motions 
Alexander’s other pending motions fall into five categories. 
First, Alexander moves to hold the preliminary pretrial conference in the ’574 case in 
person at the courthouse instead of telephonically, because Alexander cannot communicate by 
Case: 3:22-cv-00178-jdp     Document #: 157     Filed: 06/12/26     Page 3 of 7
4 
 
telephone. ’574 case, Dkt. 30. I will deny that motion as moot, because Magistrate Judge Boor 
already cancelled the telephonic conference and instead ordered the parties to respond in 
writing about potential trial dates. ’574 case, Dkt. 31. 
Second, Alexander moves to file an amended complaint  in the ’574 case. ’574 case, 
Dkt. 29. I will deny that motion without prejudice because Alexander doesn’t say how he wants 
to amend his complaint, nor does he submit a proposed amendment. 
Third, Alexander has filed multiple motions in the ’574 case asking the court to order 
prison staff to communicate with him in writing, because Alexander cannot hear or speak. ’574 
case, Dkt. 29; Dkt. 32; Dkt. 37. I will deny those  motions because they are not related to 
Alexander’s claims in that case. Alexander is proceeding on claims about prison staff’s refusal 
to communicate with him in writing in the ’59 case, and I have already ordered the defendants 
in that case to respond to Alexander’s request for a preliminary injunction related to that issue. 
Alexander should not file any further motions in the ’574 case about prison staff’s refusal to 
communicate with him in writing. If he does file any such motions, I will summarily deny them. 
Fourth, and relatedly, Alexander says that he has not been receiving certain legal mail 
because defendants have refused to communicate with him about his legal mail in writing. ’574 
case, Dkt. 37; ’59 case, Dkt. 18. Alexander acknowledges that staff have been complying with 
my previous order to inform him when he receives mail from this court by showing him a sign 
that reads: “You have received mail from the United States District Court for the Western 
District of Wisconsin. Please report to the mailroom.” But he says that prison staff are not 
telling him when he gets mail from the Wisconsin Department of Justice related to his pending 
cases. And he says that once he goes to the mailroom to retrieve his mail from this court, staff 
Case: 3:22-cv-00178-jdp     Document #: 157     Filed: 06/12/26     Page 4 of 7
5 
 
there will not communicate with him in writing, which sometimes prevents him from getting 
his mail. 
I will deny Alexander’s motion as moot because my recent order in the ’59 case, Dkt. 16, 
addresses his concerns, and it  applies to all of Alexander’s pending cases. For clarity, I will 
repeat that order here and I also will order the clerk of court to file a copy of this order in case 
no. 22-cv-178-jdp. Prison staff must tell Alexander in writing when he receives legal mail from 
either this court or the Wisconsin DOJ related to his pending cases.  And prison staff must 
provide Alexander with any legal mail he receives from this court or from the Wisconsin DOJ 
about any of his pending cases. That means that they must ensure that not only does he know 
that he has legal mail in the mailroom, but that he is able to actually retrieve his legal mail 
from the mailroom. 
Fifth, Alexander asks for a court order to compel DCI law librarians to e- file his last 
three motions “and to return [his] legal paperwork immediately.” ’574 case, Dkt. 40; ’59 case, 
Dkt. 19. I will deny th ese motions because Alexander doesn’t say what motions the law 
librarians have not filed or what paperwork they have taken from him. The court has received 
multiple motions from Alexander in the last several weeks, so it does not appear that prison 
librarians are refusing to e-file documents for him. But I will order the clerk of court to send 
Alexander a copy of the docket sheet in both the ’574 case and the ’59 case so that Alexander 
can make sure that his motions have been filed. 
ORDER 
IT IS ORDERED that: 
1. Defendants’ motions for a HIPAA-qualified protective order, ’574 case, Dkt. 38 and 
’59 case, Dkt. 21, are DENIED. 
Case: 3:22-cv-00178-jdp     Document #: 157     Filed: 06/12/26     Page 5 of 7
6 
 
2. Defendants’ motions for an extension of time to respond to the preliminary 
injunction motion , ’574 case, Dkt. 38 and ’59 case, Dkt. 21, are GRANTED. 
Defendants should make another effort to obtain a medical authorization form from 
Alexander, which should be limited in scope to information relevant to Alexander’s 
claims and his motions for preliminary injunctions. Defendants should inform the 
court promptly, but no later than June 22, 2026, that they have obtained a medical 
authorization from Alexander. If Alexander refuses to  sign the medical 
authorization, defendants have until June 22 to file  an opposition brief to 
Alexander’s preliminary injunction motion based on his failure to sign. If Alexander 
signs the authorization, defendants have seven days from when he signs it to 
respond to the preliminary injunction motion. Alexander will then have 14 days to 
reply. 
3. Alexander’s motion to hold the preliminary pretrial conference in person, ’574 case, 
Dkt. 30, is DENIED as moot. 
4. Alexander’s motion to file an amended complaint, ’574 case, Dkt. 29, is DENIED 
without prejudice. 
5. Alexander’s motions for an order requiring prison staff to communicate with him in 
writing, ’574 case, Dkt. 29, Dkt. 32, and Dkt. 37, are DENIED. 
6. Alexander’s motion regarding his legal mail, ’574 case, Dkt. 37  and ’59 case, 
Dkt. 18, are DENIED as moot. My previous order in the ’59 case, Dkt. 16, applies 
to all of Alexander’s pending cases as follows: Prison staff must tell Alexander in 
writing when he receives legal mail from either this court or the Wisconsin DOJ 
related to his pending cases. And prison staff must provide Alexander with any legal 
mail he receives from this court or from the Wisconsin DOJ about any of his pending 
cases. That means th at they must ensure that not only does he know that he has 
legal mail in the mailroom, but that he is able to actually retrieve his legal mail from 
the mailroom. 
7. Alexander’s motions to compel the law librarians to e-file his motions and to return 
his legal paperwork, ’574 case, Dkt. 40 and ’59 case, Dkt. 19, are DENIED. 
8. The clerk of court is directed to file a copy of this order in case no. 22-cv-178-jdp. 
Case: 3:22-cv-00178-jdp     Document #: 157     Filed: 06/12/26     Page 6 of 7
7 
 
9. The clerk of court is directed to send Alexander a copy of the docket sheet in both 
25-cv-574 and 26-cv-59 with this order. 
Entered June 12, 2026. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ 
________________________________________ 
JAMES D. PETERSON 
District Judge 
Case: 3:22-cv-00178-jdp     Document #: 157     Filed: 06/12/26     Page 7 of 7

Passage view · GavelSight