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.

Brown v. Uchtman

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


April 5, 2007

WILLIAM D. BROWN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ALAN UCHTMAN, DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff's motion to compel Donald A. Hulick, the current warden at Menard Correctional Center, to produce copies of commissary receipts, an incident report and a grievance. (Doc. 21). Plaintiff also requests a brief extension of the discovery period so that he can obtain the requested items.

A review of the record reveals that Warden Hulick is not a named defendant in this action. Moreover, there is no indication that plaintiff has subpoenaed the requested items from Hulick. It is not even clear that plaintiff has ever actually asked Hulick for the materials. Therefore, plaintiff's motion to compel must fail.

Insofar as plaintiff seeks an extension of time to complete discovery, a review of the record reveals that plaintiff had three and a half months for discovery, and his motion to compel was not even filed until almost one month after the March 1, 2007, discovery cutoff. Plaintiff is free to informally request the materials he seeks, from either the defendants or anyone else, but the Court will not extend the discovery period. Plaintiff has acknowledged that he can obtain the materials he desires by paying for copies, but he appears to be attempting to evade the copying charge by having the Court order prison officials to produce the requested materials. There is no constitutional "right to xerox." Jones v. Franzen, 697 F.2d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 1983). Furthermore, Ivey v. Harney, 47 F.3d 181 (7th Cir. 1995), prohibits the Court from shifting discovery responsibilities and costs from the plaintiff, except in the rarest of circumstances.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (Doc. 21) is DENIED in all respects.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CLIFFORD J. PROUD U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20070405

© 1992-2007 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.