Malouf v. Detroit Medical Center et al

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT re 12 Request filed by Joseph N Malouf for U.S. Marshals to Serve Summons Against Defendants, DENYING AS IMPROPER 13 Request filed by Joseph N Malouf for Permission to use the CM/ECF System, DENYING 14 Request filed by Joseph N Malouf to be exempt from Pacer fees. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DGoo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSEPH N. MALOUF, III,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 10-cv-14763
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge

THE DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a/
SINAI-GRACE HOSPITAL, and
CATHY DOCKERY
Defendants.
_______________________________/

ORDER (1) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SERVICE BY A
UNITED STATES MARSHAL (DKT. NO. 12), (2) DENYING AS IMPROPER
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO USE THE CM/ECF FILING SYSTEM
(DKT. NO. 13), AND (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO BE EXEMPT FROM
PACER FEES (DKT. NO. 14)
Pro se Plaintiff Joseph N. Malouf, III, filed a Complaint and application to proceed without
prepayment of fees on December 1, 2010 (Dkt. Nos. 1 and 2). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, the
Detroit Medical Center and Cathy Dockery, terminated his employment in retaliation after he filed
a sexual harassment claim against one of his supervisors.
This Court dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B),
because Plaintiff did not attach or allege that he had received notice of his right to sue by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. (Dkt. No. 3). Plaintiff’s claims were subsequently
reinstated after he filed his “right to sue” letter with the Court. (Dkt. No. 5).
On March 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed three “Requests” with this Court. (Dkt. Nos. 12, 13 and
1

14).
Plaintiff first requests that service of the Summons and Complaint be made by a United
States Marshal.

According to the docket in this case, the United States Marshal Service

acknowledged receipt of an Order Directing Service on February 3, 2011. (Dkt. No. 6). On
February 7, 2011, the docket states “TEXT-ONLY NOTICE by US Marshal of Mailing Complaint
on 02/07/2011 as to Detroit Medical Center, Cathy Dockery.” On March 2, 2011 – four weeks
before Plaintiff’s request for service – the Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint. (Dkt. No.
10). The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s request for service of process as moot, because the U.S.
Marshal has already completed service of process in this case and Defendants have already
responded to the Complaint.
Plaintiff next requests permission to use the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system.
While pro se litigants may be granted permission to use the Court’s electronic filing system,
eligibility for CM/ECF is determined by the Clerk’s Office. A pro se litigant must first contact the
Clerk’s Office to receive an application for a CM/ECF username and password. The application is
reviewed and permission is either granted or denied by the Clerk’s Office. The Court will therefore
direct the Clerk’s Office to mail a CM/ECF application to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff is to complete
and return to the Clerk’s Office. The Court will furthermore deny as improper Plaintiff’s request
for permission to use the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system. This denial shall have no effect
on Plaintiff’s eligibility as determined by the Clerk’s Office.
Plaintiff’s third request is to be exempt from PACER fees. Plaintiff states “that in lieu of his
limited income that the PACER fees would be a burden on his finances[,] and his inability to access
the PACER system at no cost would impair his ability to efficiently represent himself in this action.”

2

(Dkt. No. 14 at 2).
Registration for the PACER system is free. The current usage cost is $0.08 per page. This
cost is capped at $2.40 for most documents. Usage under $10 per quarter is waived. While Plaintiff
may be unable to afford the filing fees associated with his lawsuit, the Court finds that he is
financially capable of affording the minimal costs of the PACER system. The Court further notes
that “[t]he statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis . . . does not include the right to obtain copies
of court orders without payment therefor.” Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661, 662 (6th Cir. 1964).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to be exempt from PACER fees is denied.
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s Request for U.S.
Marshals to Serve Summons Aginst Defendants, DENIES as improper Plaintiff’s Request for
Permission to use the CM/ECF System, ORDERS the Clerk’s Office to Send Plaintiff a CM/ECF
Application, and DENIES Plaintiff’s Request to be Exempt From PACER Fees.

SO ORDERED.

S/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 18, 2011

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means and plaintiff at:
Joseph N Malouf
27073 Baldwin Avenue
Warren, MI 48092
by U.S. Mail on April 18, 2011.

S/Denise Goodine
Case Manager

4