Marshall v. Detroit City

Filing 94

ORDER denying 91 Motion to Vacate Judgment and granting 93 Motion to supplement. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DARRELL L. MARSHALL,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 00-CV-74576
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

vs.
CITY OF DETROIT, and
WAYNE COUNTY,
Defendants.
___________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT [DOC. 93]
AND DENYING MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT [DOC. 91]
This matter is before the court on plaintiff Darrell Marshall=s motion to
vacate judgment and to supplement the same motion to vacate judgment.
Plaintiff’s motion to vacate judgment seeks to vacate the court’s order
dated June 9, 2016 which denied plaintiff’s motion to stay judgment. In
turn, plaintiff’s motion to stay judgment sought to have the court vacate its
long-standing restraining order dated November 21, 2000, which enjoined
plaintiff from filing any new lawsuits in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan without first obtaining leave of this court.
The purpose of the court’s restraining order was to prevent plaintiff from
abusing the judicial process by filing further lawsuits relating to the same
-1-

underlying incident.
The November 21, 2000 order enjoining plaintiff from filing further
lawsuits without leave of court set forth a specific procedure to be followed
by plaintiff if he desired to file a new action in this court. One of the steps
plaintiff has been directed to take in order to receive leave to file a new
action, is to show that the claim he wishes to present is a new issue which
has not previously been raised in a legal action. Plaintiff did not abide by
the terms of the November 21, 2000 order in June of 2016, and he has not
abided by those terms since the court denied his request. Simply put,
plaintiff does not have a case currently pending before the court, which was
the basis of the court’s holding in denying plaintiff’s motion to stay.
Plaintiff has failed to show any basis on which the court’s order
denying motion for stay of judgment should be vacated. Now, therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to supplement is
GRANTED.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to vacate
judgment is DENIED.
Dated: February 8, 2017
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
February 8, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also
on Darrell Marshall, 15794 Steel Street, Detroit, MI 48227.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-3-