The opinion of the court was delivered by: P. Michael Mahoney, United States District Judge
The Magistrate Judge is in receipt of Plaintiff's sixteen page, pro se, Rebuttal to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Plaintiff's letters to the Magistrate Judge dated December 16, 2002, February 8, 2003, and February 9, 2003. Plaintiff's Rebuttal to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint makes nineteen requests for the Magistrate Judge to rule on. Although the Magistrate Judge will not discuss all nineteen requests now, it should be noted that the Magistrate Judge considered each request. Plaintiff's Rebuttal to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint is granted in part and denied in part.
As an initial matter, the Magistrate Judge will address Plaintiff's request for new appointed counsel. Plaintiff is allegedly not happy with his current appointed counsel and based on Plaintiff's letters, to the Magistrate Judge, it appears that Plaintiff has fired his appointed counsel. Plaintiff should note that this is a civil case and not a criminal case, and as such, Plaintiff has no constitutional right to an attorney. Rather, the Magistrate Judge looks to Local Rule 83.36(c) of the Northern District of Illinois to determine if Plaintiff satisfies the factors necessary to be appointed counsel. The Magistrate Judge, having already determined that Plaintiff satisfies the factors necessary under the local rules, therefore grants Plaintiff's request for a new appointed counsel. As assigned by the clerks office, Plaintiff's new counsel is Robert P. Nolan, 232 North Second Street, DeKalb, IL 60115. However, Plaintiff should take notice that the Magistrate Judge will not appoint new counsel again. Mr. Al Williams, Plaintiff's current appointed counsel, is therefore relieved of his appointment.
Next, because Plaintiff is being appointed new counsel, the Magistrate Judge must address some scheduling matters. First, the Magistrate Judge grants Plaintiff's request to extend outstanding discovery. The Magistrate Judge orders all outstanding discovery to be answered within 60 days of this Order. Second, Plaintiff is granted until April 4, 2003 to file a response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Defendants' are granted until April 18, 2003 to file their reply.
All Plaintiff's other requests are denied without prejudice.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw ...