Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de173> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 7 of
7
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de173 RegisterActionDate "2017-06-13" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de173 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 6/13/2017. Plaintiff files 140 , a motion for hearing and issuance of subpoena. Plaintiff claims that since May 25, 2017, library staff will not file attached exhibits "if they don't like them" and that staff is requiring that inmates re-write some of the motions. Plaintiff requests a hearing and that two Pontiac employees be subpoenaed to testify. He attaches to 140 a copy of his previously filed motion to compel Wexford's response to discovery. He apparently attaches these as proof that the attachments were not included with the original June 8, 2017 filing 139 . These documents, however, were attached at 139 and are now filed at 140 for a second time. Plaintiff does not identify any other exhibits which were originally omitted from the electronic filings at Pontiac. As a result, he fails to substantiate that the library staff is refusing to file exhibits. His claim that inmates must rewrite motions is vague and unsupported. 140 is DENIED. Plaintiff files 141 motion for assistance reasserting his claims at 140 . Here, he attaches a Pontiac Work Order Request Form which provides on its face that staff will not e-file more than three articles and internet pages with each e-filing. 141 p. 8. The Work Order does not place a limit on the length of a filing or its attachments, only on the number of articles or internet pages. It appears that if an inmate wants to file more than three such articles he must fill out a separate Work Order Request Form. The Court does not deem this to be a lack of access to the Courts but rather a ministerial rule enacted by Pontiac. See Overton v Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003). "The Supreme Court has also cautioned that courts 'must accord substantial deference to the professional judgment of prison administrators, who bear significant responsibility for defining the legitimate goals of a correctional system and for determining the most appropriate means to accomplish them."' Id. at 132. "When challenging the reasonableness of the prison's regulation, the inmate bears the burden of persuasion." Jackson v Frank, 509 F.3d 389, 391 (7th Cir. 2007). Here, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden and 141 is DENIED. (JMB, ilcd) (Entered: 06/13/2017)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de173 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de173 OntologyLabel order @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de173 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de169 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de173 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de170 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de173 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de171 @default.