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.

HENRY L. WALLER v. MICHAEL P. RANDLE


November 29, 2010

HENRY L. WALLER, JR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL P. RANDLE, DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Henry Waller, Jr.'s untimely pro se Response (Doc. 61) to the Court's Memorandum and Order (Doc. 58) to show cause of November 4, 2010. In said show cause order, the Court demanded that Waller explain his non-responsiveness to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 38) and Memorandum in Support Thereof (Doc. 39), lest the Court deem the merits of the motion admitted.

Waller now explains that he did not timely respond to Defendants' motion because his computer crashed, he has little money, and he is not an attorney. The Court sees no relationship between the fact that Waller is not an attorney and his inability to submit a timely response. Even though pro se litigants are entitled to some procedural protections, they are not entitled to a complete dispensation of procedural rules. Provident Sav. Bank v. Popovich, 71 F.3d 696, 699 (7th Cir. 1995). And, while Waller's lack of a computer and funds may provide some hurdles to this litigation that Defendants do not face, again, he is not exempt from court rules. Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001); see Members v. Paige, 140 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir.1998) ("[R]ules apply to uncounseled litigants and must be enforced.").

Put simply, the Court is unimpressed with Waller's response to the show cause order, especially in light of its untimely submission. If Waller does not exude the diligence and timeliness required of federal litigation, he will quickly find himself with an unfavorable judgment in hand.

With that said, being fully advised of the premises, the Court DISCHARGES its Memorandum and Order (Doc. 58) to show cause, DEEMS Waller's pro se Response (Doc. 62) timely, and ORDERS Defendants to file their reply, if any, to said response by December 17, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/

J. Phil Gilbert

20101129

© 1992-2010 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.