Haley v. CMS

Filing 178

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 175 MOTION for Extension of: time to file response to Defendants Martinez, Hoskins and Reed's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Samuel E. Haley, Jr., 163 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Samue l E. Haley, Jr., 157 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Samuel E. Haley, Jr., 167 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Samuel E. Haley, Jr., 176 MOTION for Extension of: time to file response to Defendants' Statement of U ncontroverted Material Fact in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Samuel E. Haley, Jr. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for extension of time to respond to defendants' motions for summary judgment, #175 and #176, are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. All responses to pending dispositive motions are due by Friday, February 24, 2012, and all replies thereto are due by Friday March 9, 2012. Plaintiff's request for a hearing regarding settlement or settlement conference is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel, #157, #163, and #167, are DENIED. Signed by Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 1/31/12. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
SAMUEL E. HALEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CMS, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:09-CV-144-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to several motions recently filed by plaintiff for
appointment of counsel, #157, #163, and #167, and for extensions of time to respond to
defendants’ motions for summary judgment, #175 and #176. In his motions filed on January 25,
2012, #175 and #176, plaintiff also requests that the Court hold a hearing regarding settlement or
settlement conference.
Several months ago, the Court amended its Case Management Order to accommodate the
parties’ various filing requests. See #118 (Order of August 12, 2011). Pursuant to that Order, all
dispositive motions were to be fully briefed by November 23, 2011. Upon granting further
extensions, the record reflects that the parties have now filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. In order to simplify and consolidate the extension requests for these dispositive
motion, the Court will order that all responses to pending dispositive motions are due by Friday,
February 24, 2012, and all replies thereto are due by Friday March 9, 2012. These deadlines
will only be further modified by a showing of exceptional circumstances.
Plaintiff’s recent motions for appointment and/or re-appointment of counsel, although
lengthy, fail to demonstrate why the Court should reconsider its prior ruling on this matter. Thus

far, this Court, as well as the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, have patiently considered and
reconsidered plaintiff’s repeated requests for appointment and re-appointment of counsel, and
this Court even stayed its prior order denying plaintiff’s request in order to allow him the
opportunity to reconcile and cooperate with his appointed attorney. Plaintiff recalcitrantly
refused to do so and instead filed a statement reciting a litany of unfounded grievances with his
attorney, #109, whereupon the Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. Plaintiff’s recent
pleadings fully demonstrate his continued ability research his and defendants’ claims and fail to
demonstrate how his alleged medical conditions prevent him from proceeding. In accordance
with its Order of June 29, 2011, the Court again finds that plaintiff is able to proceed without the
assistance of counsel – and, in fact, insists on doing so – and will deny his pending motions for
appointment and/or re-appointment of counsel.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for extension of time to respond to
defendants’ motions for summary judgment, #175 and #176, are GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part. All responses to pending dispositive motions are due by Friday, February 24, 2012, and
all replies thereto are due by Friday March 9, 2012. Plaintiff’s request for a hearing regarding
settlement or settlement conference is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel, #157,
#163, and #167, are DENIED.
Dated this 31st day of January, 2012.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-