Cole v. Detroit Housing Commission et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 13 Motion Superintending Control ; denying 13 Motion for Order to Show Cause; denying 13 Motion for TRO; denying 15 Motion to Vacate Order to Remand. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DGoo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DETROIT HOUSING COMMISSION,
et. al,
Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10-CV-14101

v.

PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

JAMES COLE, JR.,
Defendant.
_____________________________/

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER TO REMAND
AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR SUPERINTENDING
CONTROL, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
(Dkt. No. 13)
On April 28, 2011, the Court issued an Order remanding this case to the 36th District Court
in Wayne County. (Dkt. No. 11.) On May 9, 2011, Defendant Cole filed a Motion and Declaration
to Vacate Order to Remand in the instant case against the Detroit Housing Commission, et al., but
he used the wrong case number, 10-13059, which is a case he had before U.S. District Judge Denise
Page Hood, Cole v. Bing, et al. (Cole v. Bing, et al., No. 10-13059, Dkt. No. 24.) Judge Hood did
not order a remand in Cole v. Bing, et al.; rather, she granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in
an Opinion and Order issued on October 29, 2010. (Cole v. Bing, et al., No. 10-13059, Dkt. No. 13.)
Although Defendant Cole mistakenly placed the wrong case number in the caption of his motion,
the Court will, nevertheless, consider the merits of Defendant’s Motion infra, since it clearly relates
to this case.

1

The Court construes Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Order to Remand as a motion to
reconsider pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). This rule provides as follows:
Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, the court will
not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present
the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by
reasonable implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a
palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other persons
entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show
that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the
case.
E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable,
manifest, or plain.” Ososki v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F. Supp.2d 714, 718 (E.D.
Mich.2001).
Defendant Cole asserts that he did not receive a notice to respond or appear at the hearing
on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. However, the docket reflects that Defendant received notice on
January 27, 2011. (Dkt. No. 10.) Moreover, Defendant Cole has failed to show that his appearance
at the hearing would have resulted in a different disposition of the case. Defendant Cole has failed
to indicate any palpable defects in the Court’s Order to Remand. Accordingly, even if Defendant
Cole had filed his motion with the proper case number, it would be denied.
On May 13, 2011, Defendant Cole filed an 81-page document entitled “Ex Parte Motion for
Superintending Control; Order to Show Cause; and Temporary Restraining Order.” (Dkt. No. 13.)
Because this case has been remanded, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion for lack of jurisdiction.
See Order Granting Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 11).
The Court also notes that Defendant Cole, acting pro se, has filed numerous pleadings in the
instant case and in Cole v. Bing, et al, despite the fact that both cases have been closed. Continued
filings by Defendant Cole will be viewed by this Court as vexatious and an abuse of the judicial
process. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651; Heritage Hills Fellowship v. Plouff, 555 F. Supp. 1290, 1298 (E.D.

2

Mich. 1983) (discussing the power of federal courts to permanently enjoin the filing of harassing
lawsuits).
For the reasons stated above, the Court will (1) Deny Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Order
to Remand, and (2) Deny Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion for Superintending Control; Order to Show
Cause; and Temporary Restraining Order.

SO ORDERED.

S/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 3, 2011
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means and upon:
James Cole
1331 E. Canfield Street
Apt 614
Detroit, MI 48207
by U.S. Mail on June 3, 2011.

S/Denise Goodine
Case Manager

3