JOHNSON v. PATTERSON, 14-CV-1044. (2016)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20160718727
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jul. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 15, 2016
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , District Judge . The Court has received several letters from pro se Plaintiff Willie Mae Johnson since the entry of its July 5, 2016 Order (ECF No. 5) granting Separate Defendant Maxine Canterberry's Motion to Compel. These letters are not directly responsive to any motion pending before the Court. However, it appears from Plaintiff's letters that she may not understand the Court's Order directing her to respond to Defendant's interrogatories and requests for prod
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , District Judge . The Court has received several letters from pro se Plaintiff Willie Mae Johnson since the entry of its July 5, 2016 Order (ECF No. 5) granting Separate Defendant Maxine Canterberry's Motion to Compel. These letters are not directly responsive to any motion pending before the Court. However, it appears from Plaintiff's letters that she may not understand the Court's Order directing her to respond to Defendant's interrogatories and requests for produ..
More
ORDER
SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge.
The Court has received several letters from pro se Plaintiff Willie Mae Johnson since the entry of its July 5, 2016 Order (ECF No. 5) granting Separate Defendant Maxine Canterberry's Motion to Compel. These letters are not directly responsive to any motion pending before the Court. However, it appears from Plaintiff's letters that she may not understand the Court's Order directing her to respond to Defendant's interrogatories and requests for production. The Court will now clarify its Order.
Plaintiff's responses to Separate Defendant's interrogatories and requests for production must be sent to Separate Defendant. Plaintiff should not send these materials to the Court. The Court will grant one final extension for Plaintiff to respond to Separate Defendant's requests. Plaintiff's responses to Separate Defendant's interrogatories and requests for production of documents are due on or before July 29, 2016. This deadline will not be extended again, regardless of whether Plaintiff is attempting find a new attorney, as she indicates in her letters to the Court.
The Court reminds Plaintiff that any communications with the Court should be in the form of a motion, or a direct response to Defendants' motions, and not in the form of letters explaining the factual grounds for Plaintiff's case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
