Hunter v. Dutton et al

Filing 55

ORDER GRANTING 54 MOTION for Reconsideration re 17 Order, Terminate Motions filed by Markus Hunter. Attorney David G. Waltrip for Markus Hunter added. Signed by Chief Judge David R Herndon on 4/2/09. (klh, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS MARKUS HUNTER, Plaintiffs, v. C.O. DUTTON, et al., Defendants. ORDER HERNDON, Chief Judge: Pending before the Court is Hunter's motion for reconsideration of appointment of counsel (Doc. 54). It is now clear that Plaintiff has not been No. 06-0444-DRH conducting his own litigation and is incapable of doing so. The Plaintiff has been relying on an inmate paralegal and prison staff for the bulk of the work load in prosecuting his case. Pursuant to Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007), the Plaintiff, who has also made a diligent effort to obtain counsel to represent him, to no avail, should be appointed counsel and, therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion. The Court APPOINTS Mr. David G. Waltrip of the law firm of Edwards, Singer et al., 120 South Central Avenue, Suite 1600, St. Louis, Missouri 63105 for the limited purposes of Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Proceedings only. Appointed counsel should comply with the undersigned's final pretrial conference Page 1 of 2 procedures found online at http://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/herndonpretrial.html. Appointed counsel is also advised that pursuant to the Plan for the Administration of the District Court Fund, out-of-pocket expenses up to the sum of $1000.00 may be requested and authorized for reimbursement. In light of the appointment of counsel, the Court advises Hunter that he may not, in the future, file any pleadings pro se in this matter. All further pleadings should be filed and signed by appointed counsel. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 2nd day of April, 2009. /s/ DavidRHer|do| Chief Judge United States District Court Page 2 of 2

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?