Jackson v. Acevedo et al
| Jermaine Jackson |
| Gerardo Acevedo, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, John Doe #3, John Doe #4 and John Doe #5 |
| 1:2009cv01401 |
| December 7, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Peoria Office |
| Livingston |
| Harold A. Baker |
| John A. Gorman |
| Plaintiff |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
67
ORDER entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 5/27/11: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1) The Plaintiff's motions to compel discovery are denied for the reasons cited in this order. [d/e 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 64]. The discovery period is closed. 2) The Defendants' motion to stay is denied. [d/e 60].3) The Plaintiff's motion to extend the dispositive motion deadline is granted. [d/e 63] If either party wishes to file a motion for summary judgment, the motions must be filed in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(D) on or before June 30, 2011. SeeCDIL-LR 7.1(D). A response to a summary judgment motion must be filed 21 daysafter the motion is filed. (cc: plaintiff) (MSB, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
53
ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 1/3/2011: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1) The Plaintiff's First Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part. [d/e34]. The Defendants must provide the Plaintiff further response to Requests # 3, 5,20 and 26 before January 28, 2011 as directed by this order. 2) The Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part.[d/e 40]. Defendant Acevedo must provide further response to Interrogatories #10 and 12, Defend ant Scheland must provide further response to Interrogatory #12 and Defendant Thompson must respond to Interrogatory #13 as directed by this court. This information must be provided to the Plaintiff on or before January 28,2011. 3) The Plaintiff 9;s Third Motion to Compel discovery is denied. [d/e 41] 4)The Plaintiff's Fourth Motion to Compel discovery is granted in part and denied in part. [d/e 46]. Defendant Acevedo must provide the Plaintiff with responses to the questions posed by the court on or before January 28, 2011. If the Plaintiff wishes to file a further motion to compel based on this response, he must file his motion on or before February 4, 2011. 5) The Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. [ d/e 47]6) The Defendants' motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [d/e 50]. The Plaintiff must reimburse the Defendants for their costs of $237 associated with the first Deposition. The Defendants may schedule a second deposition with the Plaintiff on or before February 18, 2011. The Plaintiff must cooperate with the deposition or his case will be dismissed with prejudice and he will also be responsible for the costs associated with the second deposition. 7) The Defendants' motions for an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's discovery requests is granted. [d/e 48, 51] The court will now abide by the following scheduling deadlines: 1) the defendants must provide a response to the Plaintif f's pending discovery requests on or before January 10, 2011; 2) the Defendants must provide the additional discovery ordered in response to the motions to compel on or before January 28, 2011; 3) the discovery period is extended until February 18, 2011 for the purpose of taking the Plaintiff's deposition or obtaining responses to pending discovery ONLY; and 3) any dispositive motions must be filed on or before March 4, 2011. (cc: plaintiff)(MSB, ilcd)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
