IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
May 5, 2010
WILLIAM WARD, PLAINTIFF,
DONALD HULICK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Clifford J. Proud U. S. Magistrate Judge
PROUD, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff Ward's "Supplemental Motion for Discovery," seeking information regarding the merits of the above-captioned case. (Doc. 34).
Defendant Reed has filed a motion challenging whether plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing suit, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (Doc. 26). In accordance with the Trial Practice Schedule previously entered by the Court (Doc. 22) and Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 742 (7th Cir. 2008), discovery regarding the merits of the case is deferred until after the exhaustion issue is determined by the Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's "Supplemental Motion for Discovery" (Doc. 34) is DENIED as premature.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.