Fuentes v. Shah et al
Filing
67
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 11/2/2011. Plaintiff's "Motion for Clarification of the Claims" is granted in part and denied in part (d/e 60). The motion is granted to the extent Plaintiff seeks an extension to respond to outstanding discovery requests. Plaintiff shall have until 11/30/2011, to respond to those discovery requests. The motion is otherwise denied. Plaintiff's motion for an extension to respond to discovery requests is denied as moot (d/e 64). The motion filed by Defendants Shah and Williams seeking to extend their response deadline to Plaintiff's discovery requests is granted (d/e 63). Their response to Plaintiff's discovery requests is due November 7, 2011. (MAS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 02 November, 2011 09:09:07 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
DAVID FUENTES
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. VIPIN SHAH et al.,
Defendants.
11-CV-3073
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff pursues claims for deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs. In particular, he alleges deliberate indifference to his
spina bifida, spinal cord injuries, and his alleged need for a soy-free diet.
The case is in the process of discovery.
Plaintiff has filed a “motion for clarification of claims.” The relief
he seeks is unclear. He seems to assert that he would like to file an
amended complaint to clarify his claims. However, he also seems to
assert that the claims in this case should be severed into one case about
1
his spinal problems and a separate case about his soy problems. He also
seeks an extension to respond to discovery requests.
Severing the claims would likely make Plaintiff’s job more difficult,
not less difficult. Both claims involve Plaintiff’s medical treatment and
both claims share at least two of the same defendants. Discovery will
proceed more efficiently simultaneously, and keeping track of one case is
easier than keeping track of two cases. If Plaintiff wishes to file an
amended complaint, he may file a motion attaching the proposed
amended complaint. The amended complaint, if allowed, will replace the
current complaint in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Clarification of the Claims” is granted in
part and denied in part (d/e 60). The motion is granted to the extent
Plaintiff seeks an extension to respond to outstanding discovery requests.
Plaintiff shall have until November 30, 2011, to respond to those
discovery requests. The motion is otherwise denied.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension to respond to discovery
2
requests is denied as moot (d/e 64).
3. The motion filed by Defendants Shah and Williams seeking to
extend their response deadline to Plaintiff’s discovery requests is granted
(d/e 63). Their response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests is due
November 7, 2011.
ENTERED:
November 2, 2011
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?