Darwich v. Walker

Filing 9

OPINION AND ORDER denying 7 Motion to Change Venue. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALI HUSSEIN DARWICH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-12190

FRED B. WALKER,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE
Before the court is a motion filed pro se by Plaintiff Ali Darwich requesting that
the court “change venue,” which in essence is a motion to reassign this case to another
judge within this venue. (6/3/11 Mot. 1.) For the reasons stated below, the court will
deny the motion.
When this case was filed, it was originally assigned to the Honorable Victoria A.
Roberts. On May 23, 2011, the case was reassigned from Judge Roberts to the
undersigned judge pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 83.11. Local
Rule 83.11(b)(7) governs “companion cases,” which are cases in which ”substantially
similar evidence will be offered at trial” or “the same or related parties are present, and
the cases arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.” E.D. Mich. 83.11(b)(7)(A).
The rule provides for only one manner by which counsel or parties should bring
companion cases to the court’s attention, which is “by responding to questions on the
civil cover sheet or in the electronic filing system.” E.D. Mich. LR 83.11(b)(7)(C).
Otherwise, it is a self-enforcing rule:

When it becomes apparent to the Judge to whom a case is assigned and
to a Judge having an earlier case number that two cases are companion
cases, upon consent of the Judge having the earlier case number, the
Judge shall sign an order reassigning the case to the Judge having the
earlier case number.
E.D. Mich. LR 83.11(b)(7)(D). The rule does not provide for, nor invite, motions by
litigants. Reassignment decisions lie within the collective discretion of the judge to
whom the case is assigned and the judge having the earlier case number. Jones v. City
of Allen Park, 167 F. App’x 398, 409 (6th Cir. 2006) (“The district court’s decision
regarding whether or not to reassign a companion case is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion.”) (citing Gen. Motors Corp. v. Buha, 623 F.2d 455, 458 (6th Cir. 1980)).
Here, the reassignment decision was left to the discretion of Judge Roberts, the
judge to whom the case was currently assigned, and the undersigned, the judge having
the earlier case numbers, 10-14073 and 10-20705. Both judges agreed the case was a
companion to the earlier cases. E.D. Mich. 83.11(b)(7)(A). The case was therefore
transferred pursuant to the local rules.
Plaintiff argues the transfer was in error and the case should be reassigned back
to Judge Roberts. Plaintiff argues that the undersigned judge has “manipulated the
court’s administrative system,” is biased against Plaintiff, and is effecting some sort of
“miscarriage of justice.” (6/03/11 Mot. at 1.) Plaintiff continues to list the reasons why
he believes this judge is biased against him, reasons which primarily relate to previous
decisions of the court in related companion cases.
The court will deny the motion. First, there is no mechanism under the local rules
by which Plaintiff can file a motion such as this seeking to undo a reassignment.
Moreover, the motion is unfounded on the merits. The two relevant judges have already
2

determined that this case is a companion to the earlier cases, and nothing Plaintiff
articulates in his motion alters that conclusion. From the documents before the court, it
is clear that the cases arise out of the same “transaction or occurrence.”
To the extent Plaintiff’s motion can be construed as a motion for disqualification
under 28 U.S.C. § 455, “[i]n order to justify recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455, the judge’s
prejudice or bias must be personal or extrajudicial.” United States v. Jamieson, 427
F.3d 394, 405 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Hartsel, 199 F.3d 812, 820 (6th
Cir. 1999)). Aside from his wholly invented allegations regarding this judge’s purported
involvement with the mafia, Plaintiff’s allegations of conflict of interest relate to the
court’s rulings as the presiding judge over Plaintiff’s multiple cases. Accordingly, any
request for disqualification will be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to change venue [Dkt. # 7] is DENIED.

S/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 21, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, June 21, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\11-12190.DARWICH.Motion.ChangeVenue.chd.wpd

3