Hairston v. McCain et al

Filing 82

ORDER denying without prejudice 53 Motion to Compel, 57 Motion for Appointment of Stenographer/Court Reporter, and, 58 Motion to Compel; denying as moot 61 Motion to Amend/Correct and 64 Motion to Amend/Correct; and denying without prejudice 65 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 10/13/2009. (hbs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SHAUNTEZ T. HAIRSTON, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH McCAIN, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Mearl Justus to Answer First Set of Interrogatories (Doc. 53); Motion for Appointment of Stenographer/Court Reporter (Doc. 57); Motion to Compel Mearl Justus to Produce Plaintiff's First Request for Production (Doc. 58); Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 61); and Motion to Amend Amended Complaint (Doc. 64). At the time Plaintiff filed each of these motions, he was proceeding pro se in the action. The Court has since appointed counsel to represent Plaintiff in this matter. Also pending before the Court is a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Requests for Written Discovery by Defendants McCain and Reddy (Doc. 65). The first three pro se motions--to compel answers to interrogatories, to appoint a stenographer or court reporter, and to compel production of documents--indicate that Plaintiff has had difficulty obtaining discovery. Plaintiff's appointed counsel should be able to expedite and simplify discovery. Accordingly, those motions (Docs. 53, 57, and 58) are DENIED without p r e j u d i c e. Since the time Plaintiff filed his two motions to amend the complaint, his appointed counsel has sought and was granted leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 78). Accordingly, Plaintiff's pro se motions to amend the complaint (Docs. 61 and 64) are DENIED as moot. Defendants' motion for an extension of time to respond to requests for written discovery

Case No. 3:07-cv-687 MJR

(Doc. 65) is DENIED without prejudice. Because Plaintiff is now represented by counsel, it is likely that Plaintiff will make additional requests for production and written discovery. If Defendants need additional time after working with Plaintiff's counsel, they may make another request for extension of time. Plaintiff is reminded that now that he is represented by counsel in the matter, he should cease filing any pro se motions without assistance from his attorney. DATED: October 13, 2009 s/ Donald G. Wilkerson DONALD G. WILKERSON United States Magistrate Judge

2