Wallace v. Johnson et al

Filing 112

ORDER denying without prejudice 100 Motion to Compel; denying without prejudice 100 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying as moot 111 Motion to Stay. Discovery Dispute conference via video conference set 9/27/12 at 10:00 am. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 8/17/12. (amv)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MAURICE WALLACE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
YOLANDE
JOHNSON, KENNETH
BARTLEY, and JESSE HELD,
Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11–cv–0131–MJR–SCW

ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
District Judge Reagan’s Order from August 13, 2012 severed this case into two
separate actions: this case (which retains the original case number) and No. 12-899-MJR, Wallace v.
Johnson, Bartley, and Caliper.1
Per Judge Reagan’s order, there remains pending in both cases a motion to compel
discovery, filed by Mr. Wallace on July 5, 2012. The parties in both the severed cases are expected
to be fully engaged in discovery at this point. For the sake of judicial economy and a clear record in
each of the new cases, Mr. Wallace’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 100) is DENIED without
prejudice. (Insofar as that motion makes an alternative request for appointment of counsel, it is
also DENIED without prejudice. The Court again notes (see Doc. 86) that Wallace, whose
motions in this case have been quite clear, even when arguing issues like res judicata, is still competent
to litigate his case given its current complexity. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 655 (7th Cir.
2007)).

1

An order identical to this one will be entered in Case No. 12-cv-899.

Wallace’s motion to stay discovery (Doc. 111) is really a motion for extension of a
discovery deadline that was informally agreed upon between the parties. It is DENIED as MOOT
since Defendant appears to be amenable to not receiving Wallace’s written discovery requests until
mid-September. Should either party find itself unable to meet internal discovery deadlines, that
party is, of course, welcome to ask the Court for appropriate relief if a dispute arises.
In light of this case’s newly simplified posture, Mr. Wallace is DIRECTED to file a
new motion to compel in this case, based on any contested discovery issue that is specific to this
case. Mr. Wallace shall file such a motion on or before Tuesday, September 4, 2012. Once Mr.
Wallace’s motion is docketed, Defendants shall have a week to respond. This case is SET for a
discovery dispute conference (to be held by videoconference) before Magistrate Judge Williams on
September 27, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. (a similar conference in Case No. 12-cv-899 will be set for
10:45 that day). A writ will issue regarding Mr. Wallace’s participation in that videoconference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 17, 2012

/s/ Stephen C. Williams
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
United States Magistrate Judge