Brian A. Ducksworth v. Sarah Feltes

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 1, 2025*
Decided May 1, 2025
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2542
BRIAN A. DUCKSWORTH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SARAH FELTES,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 24-cv-659-pp
Pamela Pepper,
Chief Judge.
* The appellee was not served with process and is not participating in this appeal. We have
agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the brief and record adequately present the facts
and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED . R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 24-2542 Page 2
O R D E R
Brian Ducksworth, a Wisconsin prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his civil-rights
suit against a prison litigation coordinator. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court
dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. We affirm.
In an amended complaint, Ducksworth alleged that the coordinator denied him
access to the courts when she delayed access to video evidence he believes he needed to
litigate a separate lawsuit. See Ducksworth v. Boehm, 23-cv-23-wmc (W.D. Wis. Aug. 21,
2024). The coordinator’s actions, Ducksworth said, prevented him from discovering key
eyewitnesses and other material evidence.
The district court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and
dismissed it for failure to state a claim. The court explained that the claim was no longer
an issue because in the other suit Ducksworth had received the video evidence in time
to review it ahead of his summary judgment deadline. The court added that it lacked
authority to address a discovery dispute in an ongoing federal case in another court.
Ducksworth appeals, challenging the dismissal of his amended complaint. He
maintains that the delay in being able to view the video caused him to lose his case. But
even if he was delayed access to video evidence, he has failed to allege facts showing
that he was denied access to the courts—in other words, that the prison litigation
coordinator frustrated his ability to pursue a nonfrivolous legal action. See Christopher v.
Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 414–15 (2002). Ducksworth was able to pursue his case in court,
and he did not explain in his later filings how the delayed access to the video
undermined his case.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --