IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
August 19, 2010
JAMES M. WORTHEM, PLAINTIFF,
WARDEN JOHNSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Donald G. Wilkerson United States Magistrate Judge
Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff James M. Worthem's pro se Motion for Status Update and Court Order Against I.D.O.C. (Doc. 62). For the reasons set forth below, this motion is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff James M. Worthem filed this lawsuit on April 22, 2008, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that a number of Illinois Department of Corrections officials failed to protect him from assault by two other inmates in July 2007, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Upon threshold review, the Court determined that Plaintiff had stated a failure-to-protect claim against Defendants Johnson, MacDonald, Bradley, and Dallas (Doc. 23).
On October 10, 2008, the Court appointed Attorney Vincent A. Banks, III, to represent the Plaintiff in this matter (Doc. 16). After a significant delay, Attorney Banks entered his appearance in the action on September 29, 2009 (Doc. 51).
Plaintiff filed the instant motion on January 6, 2010, stating that as of January 4, 2010, Attorney Banks had not contacted him, and prison officials at Pontiac Correctional Center were preventing Plaintiff from contacting Attorney Banks by mail or telephone. He seeks Court intervention in contacting his attorney.
Since Plaintiff filed the motion, the Court has entered a schedule setting deadlines for the close of discovery and filing of dispositive motions. Those deadlines have now expired. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 2, 2010. Plaintiff's response to the motion is not due until September 1, 2010.
The Court has reviewed the docket in the case and finds that Attorney Banks was present and represented Plaintiff at his deposition on May 10, 2010 (See Doc. 77, Exh. A, Worthem Deposition). Thus, it appears that Attorney Banks is involved in the case and acting as Plaintiff's counsel.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Status Update and a Court Order against I.D.O.C., in which he seeks Court intervention in contacting his attorney, is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.