UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
November 30, 2007
FABIAN SANTIAGO, PLAINTIFF,
ROGER WALKER, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
This cause is before the court for case management. The plaintiff has filed a document entitled "Plaintiff's Motion Objecting to the Courts Denial for an Order to Compel Discovery and the Appointment of Counsel." [d/e 104]. The court will interpret this document as a motion to reconsider the court's June 25, 2007 Court Order denying the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and the denying the plaintiff's renewed motion for appointment of counsel. [d/e 103]
The plaintiff's main argument is that the defendants are lying and misleading the court by claiming they have turned over all documents relevant to the plaintiff's discovery request. The plaintiff says the court should not take the defendants at their word. The court has no alternative since the plaintiff has failed to point to any specific documents which he believe the defendants have failed to turn over. The court has also admonished the defendants that they may not rely on any documents in a dispositive motion or at trial that were not properly provided to the plaintiff during the discovery process.
The plaintiff also argues again that his request for any misconduct reports against any of the defendants is appropriate. The plaintiff has not provided any new argument on this issue and the court believes this request is over broad.
The plaintiff finally argues that the court should have allowed his request for any reports of similar misconduct filed against any of the defendants. The defendants responded that grievances are not filed by the type of incident, but by the offender's name. The court agreed that the request was unduly burdensome. However, the court also pointed out that the plaintiff could make a request for similar grievances filed by specific inmates, and gave the plaintiff extra time for discovery. The plaintiff apparently failed to do this. The motion for reconsideration of the court's denial of the motion to compel is denied.
As for his motion for appointment of counsel, the plaintiff states that while he "has some knowledge and experience with the litigation process and the filing of pleadings," he is not familiar with the jury trial process. (Plain. Mot, p. 3). The plaintiff may renew his motion if his case is set for jury trial. However, at this point in the proceedings the plaintiff is capable of representing himself.
Finally, the plaintiff has filed a motion asking for seven subpoena forms "to compel the appearance/attendance of witnesses." (Plain. Mot, p. 1), [d/e 115]. This case is not yet set for trial. The plaintiff should list his potential witnesses in the proposed pretrial order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1) The plaintiff's motion for consideration of the June 25, 2007 court order denying plaintiff's motion to compel and motion for appointment of counsel is denied. [d/e 104]
2) The plaintiff's motion for seven subpoena forms is denied. [d/e 115]
Enter this 30th day of November, 2007.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.