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.

Williams v. Baker

United States District Court, Seventh Circuit

November 26, 2013

ROBERT WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
C/O BAKER, Defendant.

ORDER

DONALD G. WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge.

Now pending before the Court are the Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 35), the Motion for Copies (Doc. 36), and the Motion to the Clerk (Doc. 37) filed by Plaintiff, Robert Williams, on November 7, 2013. For the reasons set for the below, the Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 35) is DENIED, the Motion for Copies (Doc. 36) is GRANTED IN PART, and the Motion to the Clerk (Doc. 37) is GRANTED.

In an April 8, 2013 Order (Doc. 21), this Court denied, without prejudice, Plaintiff's first motion for appointment of counsel and found that Plaintiff had not made an effort to secure counsel without Court intervention, that Plaintiff appeared competent and capable, and that the claims are not complex. Nonetheless, this Court informed Plaintiff that if he experiences difficulties that he should seek appointment of counsel again. In the current motion, which is not on the new "Motion for Recruitment of Counsel" form, Plaintiff offers no detail as to why litigation is particularly burdensome to him. Plaintiff indicates that he suffers from impediments that are not unique: he has no knowledge of the law, he is in segregation, he has limited access to the law library. None of these excuses warrant recruitment of counsel. Plaintiff appears competent and capable of litigating this relatively simple matter without the assistance of counsel.

In Plaintiff's Motion for Copies, he seeks copies of discovery requests that he submitted to Defendants that he asserts were filed with the Court. Local Rule 26.1(b) provides that discovery requests (except for certain categories not relevant here) are not to be filed with the Court. As such, when Plaintiff submitted such discovery requests/responses to the Court, they were returned to Plaintiff unfiled (See Doc. 30). The Court file does not contain any discovery requests or responses. However, in order to expedite this matter, Defendant is hereby ORDERED to re-mail to Plaintiff their responses, if any, to his requests to produce (Defendant is not required to re-mail actual responsive documents) or interrogatories within 10 days of the date of this Order.

Finally, Plaintiff's Motion to the Clerk requests the date on which this lawsuit was filed. Plaintiff is informed that this suit was filed on August 9, 2012. To assist Plaintiff, the Clerk is DIRECTED to mail to Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet along with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.