Heinrich v. Prange

Full title: LARRY WILLIAM HEINRICH, Petitioner, v. DARL PRANGE, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

Date published: Sep 20, 2006

Civil No. 05-851-JPG (S.D. Ill. Sep. 20, 2006)

Opinion

Civil No. 05-851-JPG.

September 20, 2006

ORDER

CLIFFORD PROUD, Magistrate Judge

Before the Court are two discovery-related pleadings filed by plaintiff: Motion for Production of Documents and Discovery (Doc. 11) and Request for Admission (Doc. 12).

Plaintiff is a pro se inmate in the custody of the IDOC. He brings suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. An order on preliminary review was entered one on July 24, 2006. See, Doc. 6.

As defendant has not yet entered an appearance, these pleadings are premature. The Court will enter an order regarding discovery practice and setting a schedule after defendant has entered an appearance. That order will require defendant to make certain initial disclosures.

Plaintiff should note that interrogatories and requests for production of documents should be served on defendant but should not be filed with the Court. Motions to compel discovery should not be filed until defendant has objected to a discovery request and the parties have tired, but failed, to resolve the dispute informally.

Upon consideration and for good cause shown, plaintiff's Motion for Production of Documents and Discovery (Doc. 11) and Request for Admission (Doc. 12) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.