Thompson v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al

Filing 84

ORDER DENYING 58 Motion to Compel; GRANTING 60 Motion for Leave to File; DENYING 64 Motion to Compel; DENYING 65 Motion to Stay; DENYING 66 Motion to Compel; DENYING 75 Motion ; GRANTING 76 Motion for Leave to File. Clerk of Court to file response to 50 and to refile 76 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 8/29/16. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DENNIS THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
OF)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:15-cv-850-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are various motions:
Plaintiff first states that he did not receive a Motion for Extension of Time filed by
Defendants on July 8, 2016 (Doc. 47) (even though it was served by mail) and seeks an Order
directing Defendants to serve him with motions filed in this Court. Defendants are aware of their
obligation to serve motions and papers and do not require instruction from the Court. As Plaintiff
has set forth no prejudice, the Motion is DENIED (Doc. 58).
Plaintiff next seeks to supplement his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment on
Exhaustion (Doc. 50).

The Motion is GRANTED (Doc. 60).

The Clerk of Court is

DIRECTED to file the amended response and it will be considered by the Court.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED (Doc. 64). Plaintiff already has responded to
the Motion for summary Judgment on exhaustion. As such, discovery related to the same is
presumably not necessary for such a response. Second, the Court has reviewed the interrogatories
and answers submitted by Plaintiff. The Court finds that the answers are sufficient and, to the
extent that no answer was given, finds that the interrogatories relate to the merits of this case;

Page 1 of 2

Plaintiff may re-serve these discovery requests once the exhaustion issue has been determined.
Finally, to the extent that Defendants have not supplemented discovery responses within the time
expected by Plaintiff, the Court again notes that Defendants are aware of their obligations under
the Federal Rules and an Order directing compliance is not necessary at this point.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay is DENIED (Doc. 65) along with the Motion to Clarify the same
(Doc. 75).
Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel also is DENIED (Doc. 66) for the reasons set forth
above as to Plaintiff’s interrogatories.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Status Briefing is GRANTED (Doc. 76). The Court
will consider the information contained in the Motion when the issue of injunctive relief is
considered. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to refile the Motion as a reply to the responses
(Docs. 71 and 72).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 29, 2016

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2