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.

Hanks v. Ramos

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


June 17, 2008

EDWARD HANKS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ANTHONY A. RAMOS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Donald G. Wilkerson United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Disclosure Order (Doc. 45), Defendants' Motion to Strike the Motion for Disclosure Order (Doc. 49), and Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Doc. 50).

MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE ORDER AND MOTION TO STRIKE

Plaintiff, then an inmate at the Menard Correctional Center, filed a pro se complaint in this action on March 3, 2006. After the defendants were served, and discovery had begun, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of its earlier order denying appointment of counsel (Doc. 41). Attorney Thomas Q. Keefe, III, was appointed to represent Plaintiff in the action by letter dated May 7, 2008 (Doc. 44). On the same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Disclosure Order requesting that the Court order the Illinois Department of Corrections to disclose Plaintiff's medical records to him for purposes of preparing his case. Defendants move to strike this motion because at the time it was filed, Plaintiff was represented by counsel. The Court will not ordinarily consider pro se motions from counseled parties. See United States v. Troxell, 887 F.2d 830, 836 (7th Cir. 1989).

The Court believes it likely that Plaintiff mailed the motion to the Court prior to the appointment of Mr. Keefe as his attorney. The Court agrees, however, that Plaintiff is now represented by counsel who can assist him with completing discovery, and that the Motion for Disclosure Order is no longer necessary and should be stricken. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Strike the Motion for Disclosure Order (Doc. 49) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to strike the Motion for Disclosure Order.

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY

Due to the appointment of counsel just prior to the scheduled close of discovery, Plaintiff now moves for an extension of the time to complete discovery (Doc. 50). The motion is GRANTED. The schedule is amended as follows:

1. Discovery shall be completed by July 18, 2008.

2. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before August 15, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080617

© 1992-2008 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.