Fischer v. Dunning, 574 F. App'x 828

Fischer, a New Mexico inmate with diabetes, sued prison officials under the Eighth Amendment alleging denial of needed medical care (injections, wheelchair transport, oxygen machine, diabetic hose, and specialist appointments).
District court narrowed defendants to two medical staff; defendants were ordered to prepare a Martinez report and requested Fischer’s medical records (2009–2012) to defend against his claims.
Fischer repeatedly refused to sign an unrestricted release of his medical records, demanding free copies or in-person review; he submitted an incomplete, limited-release form covering only a 10-month in-prison period.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) for discovery noncompliance; the district court issued an order to show cause warning dismissal was a possible sanction.
The district court found Fischer willfully disobeyed clear discovery orders, that lesser sanctions would be ineffective, and dismissed the suit with prejudice; it also denied multiple motions for court-appointed counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal with prejudice was an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with a discovery order	Fischer argued he should not be compelled to release records until he received free copies or could review them in person; later offered a limited release	Defendants argued lack of full medical records prejudiced their defense and justified dismissal under Rule 37(b)	Affirmed: dismissal proper—district court did not abuse discretion after applying Ehrenhaus factors (prejudice, interference, culpability, warning, lesser sanctions)
Whether Fischer was entitled to court-appointed counsel	Fischer claimed indigence, limited access to legal materials, and difficulty comprehending proceedings justified appointment	Defendants opposed appointment; court noted case not legally or factually complex and Fischer’s filings were coherent	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying counsel; not the kind of extreme unfairness requiring appointment

Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978) (procedures for reviewing prisoner medical claims and compiling the record)
Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916 (10th Cir. 1992) (factors to evaluate dismissal as sanction for discovery violations)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally but the court is not the litigant’s advocate)
Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2009) (limits on courts acting as pro se litigant advocates)
Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2004) (standard for reviewing denial of counsel for indigent prisoners in civil cases)
Beaudry v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 331 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2003) (civil plaintiffs have no Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel)