Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shaun Donasius Dandridge v. Leonta Jackson et al

November 23, 2011

SHAUN DONASIUS DANDRIDGE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LEONTA JACKSON ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge:

E-FILED

Wednesday, 23 November, 2011 04:18:51 PM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

OPINION

A status conference was held on November 21, 2011. Plaintiff appeared pro se by video conference. Illinois Assistant Attorney General Katharine Ariss appeared on behalf of Defendants, except for Defendant Ashby who has not yet been served.

All Defendants have returned signed waivers of service except for Defendant Ashby. According to this Court's inquiry after the hearing, Defendant Ashby is now working at the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center. The litigation coordinator at Rushville has indicated that she will see that Ashby receives the waiver. Accordingly, the Court will send the waiver again to Rushville. In the meantime, scheduling deadlines will be set to keep the case moving.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1) The clerk is directed to send Defendant Ashby's waiver of service and a copy of the Complaint to the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center, to the attention of the litigation coordinator.

2) Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied (d/e 36) for the reasons stated in Judge Baker's order dated May 25, 2011. This Court agrees with Judge Baker's conclusion that Plaintiff appears competent to proceed pro se in light of the relative simplicity of his claims.

3) Plaintiff's motion to strike portions of Defendants' Answer is denied (d/e 37). The Answer only stakes out Defendants' positions. The Court does not rule on the merits of those positions until Defendants file a motion and Plaintiff has an opportunity to respond.

4) Within 45 days of the entry of this order, the parties shall provide to each other the initial disclosures described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(i)-(ii).

5) Discovery closes June 4, 2012.

6) Dispositive motions are due July 9, 2012.

7) Plaintiff's incarceration limits him to written discovery. Written discovery must be served on a party at least 30 days before the discovery deadline. Discovery requests and responses are not filed with the court, unless there is a dispute regarding such discovery. See CDIL-LR 26.3. Motions to compel discovery must be accompanied by the relevant portions of the discovery request and the response. Additionally, except for good cause shown, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.