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.

Whitfield v. Walker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


May 4, 2007

BENYEHUDAH WHITFIELD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROGER E. WALKER ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge

Case Management Order

Before the Court are several pending motions, addressed in turn below.

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant's motion for leave to file an amended answer to add the affirmative defense of res judicata is denied (d/e 220), with leave to renew after the court rules on merits of the pending motion for summary judgment. If the res judicata issue becomes necessary to address, the court will revive the motion sua sponte.

2) Plaintiff's motion to withdraw or strike parts of his response to defendants' prior motion for summary judgment is denied (d/e 222). However, the court will take into account Plaintiff's assertion that he was mistaken in his own assertions of fact regarding the res judicata issue, if it becomes necessary to address that issue.

3) Plaintiff's motion for a new final pretrial conference is denied as unnecessary (d/e 225). After the court rules on the pending motion for summary judgment, a new final pretrial conference will be scheduled if necessary.

4) Plaintiff's motion for a copy of proposed final pretrial order is granted (d/e 226). The clerk is directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of the proposed final pretrial order filed March 19, 2007 (d/e 216).

5) Plaintiff's motion for a civil docket sheet is granted (d/e 227). The clerk is directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet.

6) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file permissive joinder of additional defendants, a motion to add new defendants, is denied (d/e 232). Plaintiff alleges the Defendants intentionally concealed the names of these new defendants from him, but his assertions are too vague and unsupported to support such a conclusion, nor does the record support that conclusion.

Accordingly, the court concludes that allowing amendment at this late stage would only unduly burden and unfairly prejudice the existing defendants and cause unnecessary delay.

Entered this 4th Day of May , 2007.

20070504

© 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.