Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:17-cv-01348_de53> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 10 of
10
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01348_de53 RegisterActionDate "2018-07-18" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01348_de53 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on 7/18/2018. Plaintiff's Motions to Compel 35 37 42 are DENIED as it does not appear that Plaintiff served this discovery request upon Defendants. As noted in the Court's Scheduling Order 21 and the Text Order entered April 3, 2018, discovery requests must be sent directly to defendants' counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A) (a party must respond within 30 days after being served). Filing a discovery request with the Court is not sufficient. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2) (identifying the ways in which service can be made). If Plaintiff served these requests upon defense counsel, Plaintiff did not attach Defendants' responses to his motion as required by the Scheduling Order. Moreover, Defendants response to Plaintiff's motion indicates that Plaintiff has been shown all video evidence in Defendants' possession. See 43 . Plaintiff filed a Motion to Request Counsel 39 . Plaintiff has no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in this case. In considering the Plaintiffs motion, the court asks: (1) has the indigent Plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself? Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has previously shown he made a reasonable effort to obtain counsel in this case. As to the second prong, Plaintiff asserts that he suffers from an unspecified mental illness, that he has no way to locate witnesses in this case, that Defendants did not show him the correct video footage, and that he lacks access to "adequate legal material." Plaintiff, nonetheless, has personal knowledge of the facts, he has been able to adequately convey them in writing, he should be able to obtain relevant documents and identify potential witnesses via the discovery process, and this case does not appear overly complex. Although Plaintiff indicates that he suffers from a mental illness, he does not provide enough information for the Court to determine how it affects his ability to litigate this case. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is capable of representing himself at this time. Plaintiff's motion 39 is DENIED with leave to renew. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 07/18/2018)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01348_de53 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01348_de53 OntologyLabel order @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01348_de53 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:17-cv-01348_de27 @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01348_de53 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:17-cv-01348_de43 @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01348_de53 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:17-cv-01348_de46 @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01348_de53 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:17-cv-01348_de48 @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01348_de53 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:17-cv-01348_de51 @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01348_de53 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:17-cv-01348_de52 @default.