IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
February 20, 2008
JOHN VIRGIL MCCUTCHEON, PLAINTIFF,
DONALD YOUNG, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff McCutcheon's "Motion for Answer." (Doc. 46). Plaintiff asks the Court to examine the first amended complaint and respond to plaintiff's request for documents and reconsider the appointment of counsel.
The Court does not conduct discovery on plaintiff's behalf. Plaintiff is responsible for obtaining evidence through the discovery process.
A review of the record reveals that amended complaint was filed simultaneously with plaintiff's second motion for appointment of counsel. (Docs. 24 and 25). The motion for appointment of counsel was denied and a subsequent request for reconsideration was denied. (Docs. 27 and 38). The only additional information plaintiff has presented is an assertion that he has experienced unspecified "mail problems, library legal problems and some retaliation." Such vague assertions do not provide the Court with sufficient information to assess whether the appointment of counsel is warranted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's " Motion for Answer" (Doc. 46) is DENIED in all respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CLIFFORD J. PROUD U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.