Walls v. Johnson et al

Filing 82

ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 76 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Erven Zachary Taylor Walls. Discovery Deadline RESET to 8/11/2017. Set/Reset Deadlines as to 78 MOTION for Summary Judgment : Responses due by 8/31/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 6/6/17. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
THEODORE W. MCABEE and STEPHEN A.)
)
JOHNSON,
)
)
Defendants.
ERVEN WALLS,

Case No. 3:16-cv-18-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Extension of Time and for Appointment
of Counsel filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 76). The motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
The discovery deadline in this case was March 17, 2017 (Doc. 51). Plaintiff served
discovery requests upon Defendants on March 15, 2017, mistakenly believing that he was not
required to serve them at least 30 days prior to the discovery deadline, as set forth in the
Scheduling Order (Doc. 24). Plaintiff claims ignorance; however, merely because he is pro se
does not excuse him from following the Orders of this Court. See McNeil v. U.S., 508 U.S. 106,
113 (1993). For relief, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling answers, appointment of an attorney,
and a temporary stay until counsel can be recruited. The last two requests are DENIED for the
reasons set forth in this Court’s previous Order (Doc. 73).
However, Plaintiff shall be granted additional time to conduct discovery. The Court notes
that the Pavey issue was not resolved until February 15, 2017, giving Plaintiff only a short amount
of time to conduct discovery. Therefore, the discovery deadline is extended to August 11, 2017.

Page 1 of 2

Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, served on March 15, 2017, by June 23,
2017.1 Plaintiff shall file a response to the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 78) by August
31, 2017.
DATED: June 6, 2017

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

1

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s discovery requests and anticipates that Defendants will object
to a majority of them.
Page 2 of 2