Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:16-cv-01190_de49> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 8 of
8
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01190_de49 RegisterActionDate "2016-10-07" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01190_de49 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 10/7/2016. Plaintiff's motions for subpoenas 33 and[ 35] are DENIED. As for his request to subpoena his medical records, Plaintiff must first serve Defendants with a proper discovery request attempting to obtain these records before issuing a subpoena to a third-party. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has propounded a proper discovery request for his medical records upon Defendants, and therefore, his motion for the issuance of a subpoena is denied. As for his request to issue subpoenas for the grievances that he has filed and for the other documents that he wants, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the relevance of these documents, and Plaintiff's unsupported statement that they are "relevant and necessary to litigate his case" is an insufficient basis upon which to issue the subpoenas that he seeks given the claims in this case. Plaintiff's motion for an expert witness 36 is also DENIED. To the extent that Plaintiff asks the Court to require officials at Pontiac to take him to the VA hospital in Peoria, Illinois, to receive treatment, his motion is akin to a motion for a preliminary injunction. "To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show that its case has 'some likelihood of success on the merits' and that it has 'no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is denied.'" Stuller, Inc. v. Steak N Shake Enter., Inc., 695 F.3d 676, 678 (7th Cir. 2012)(quoting Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 694 (7th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff cannot prevail on his request for a transfer to the Peoria VA because he has not shown that he will suffer imminent, substantial risk of harm without being granted injunctive relief. To the extent that Plaintiff asks the Court to compel medical professionals at the Peoria VA to testify as experts on his behalf, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that an expert is necessary to prove his case. Gilman v. Amos, 2011 WL 5024181,* 3 (7th Cir. Oct. 21, 2011). Moreover, Plaintiff is essentially asking the Court to retain and to appoint an expert witness who will testify on his behalf, not for the appointment of an impartial expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. There is no provision in the United States Code or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for such an appointment. Tolonen v. Heidorn, 2013 WL 5276126, * 1 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 18, 2013). Next, Plaintiff's motion to compel 38 is DENIED. Defendants' timely provided their initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and this Court's Scheduling Order. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to compel is moot. Finally, Plaintiff's motion for status 39 is DENIED in light of this Order. (KE, ilcd) (Entered: 10/07/2016)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01190_de49 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01190_de49 hasJudgeReference SJ001500 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01190_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01190_de41 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01190_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01190_de44 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01190_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01190_de46 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01190_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01190_de47 @default.