Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Heinrich v. Prange

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


September 20, 2006

LARRY WILLIAM HEINRICH, PETITIONER,
v.
DARL PRANGE, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Before the Court are two discovery-related pleadings filed by plaintiff: Motion for Production of Documents and Discovery (Doc. 11) and Request for Admission (Doc. 12).

Plaintiff is a pro se inmate in the custody of the IDOC. He brings suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983. An order on preliminary review was entered one on July 24, 2006. See, Doc. 6.

As defendant has not yet entered an appearance, these pleadings are premature. The Court will enter an order regarding discovery practice and setting a schedule after defendant has entered an appearance. That order will require defendant to make certain initial disclosures.

Plaintiff should note that interrogatories and requests for production of documents should be served on defendant but should not be filed with the Court. Motions to compel discovery should not be filed until defendant has objected to a discovery request and the parties have tired, but failed, to resolve the dispute informally.

Upon consideration and for good cause shown, plaintiff's Motion for Production of Documents and Discovery (Doc. 11) and Request for Admission (Doc. 12) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CLIFFORD J. PROUD U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20060920

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.