Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:17-cv-01467_de36> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01467_de36 RegisterActionDate "2018-12-20" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01467_de36 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/20/2018. On October 29, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide his initial disclosures, originally due 7/15/18, by November 15, 2018. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for extension as he had been hospitalized after swallowing a toe nail clipper on October 12, 2018. Plaintiff also requests the recruitment of pro bono counsel in that same motion. 27 is GRANTED to the extent that plaintiff will be given a final extension, through 1/20/19 in which to provide disclosures. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this case for failure to follow the Courts order. As to the request for counsel, the Court does not possess the authority to require an attorney to accept pro bono appointments on civil cases such as this. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir. 2007). In determining whether the Court should attempt to find an attorney to voluntarily take a case, the question is whether the plaintiff appears competent to litigate his own claims, given their degree of difficulty, and this includes the tasks that normally attend litigation: evidence gathering, preparing and responding to motions and other court filings, and trial. Pruitt at 655. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed this, and two other cases on the same day, 10/16/17. In one of the other cases, B9F9A8D v. Wexford, No. 17-1466 (C.D.Ill. Oct 16, 2017), Plaintiff drafted a detailed response to summary judgment, identifying and distinguishing approximately a dozen cases. In the case at hand, Plaintiff has been dilatory in providing disclosures but has been liberally granted additional time and the Court sees no detriment to his proceeding on his own. As previously noted, Plaintiff admits that he is seriously mentally ill but does not explain how that affects his ability to represent himself in this deliberate indifference claim. To the extent 27 requests recruitment of pro bono counsel it is DENIED. Plaintiff files 28 , notifying the Clerk that he was on suicide watch and did not receive a copy of Defendants' Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff does not ask that a copy be sent to him and it is assumed that in the interim, he has received a copy of the Motion. If he has not, Plaintiff is to inform the Court. 28 is GRANTED to this extent. (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2018)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01467_de36 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01467_de36 hasJudgeReference SJ001506 @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01467_de36 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:17-cv-01467_de33 @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01467_de36 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:17-cv-01467_de34 @default.