Bonner v. Romulus Police Department et al

Filing 88

ORDER Striking Filings 86 Request filed by Brian Bonner, 87 Declaration filed by Brian Bonner. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (MarW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRIAN JOHNNIE BONNER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No.: 14-10196
Honorable Gerald E. Rosen
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

ROMULUS POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT [R. 83]
AND STRIKING FILINGS [R. 78, 80, 81, 82, 84]
On September 30, 2014, the Honorable Gerald E. Rosen dismissed
all of plaintiff Brian Bonner’s claims against all defendants except his claims
of Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments violations against police officers
Haynes and Perkins (hereinafter “Defendants”). [R. 53]. Despite the
circumscribed nature of this case, Bonner has repeatedly filed motions and
other documents related to matters outside of this case, namely retaliation
he has been allegedly experiencing at the hands of non-party Michigan
Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) officers. In February 2015, this Court
issued an order denying and/or striking the majority of these filings and
cautioning Bonner to limit his filings to the matter at issue, and conform
them to the Federal and Local rules, lest they be stricken. [R. 70].

Subsequent to that order, the Court ordered that counsel be appointed for
Bonner, due to a concern about his mental stability. [R. 74]. Approximately
one week ago, Bonner was paroled and is no longer in MDOC custody. 1
Bonner’s most recent filings include a “request and or motion to admit
exhibits, affidavit, documents, discovery and material evidence” related to
his claims of retaliation by non-party MDOC officials, a motion to admit
evidence related to the same, a statement documenting continued
retaliation, a request to order discovery and a letter alleging that Bonner
was continuing to be incarcerated despite his parole (Bonner was paroled
one day after this letter was filed). [R. 78, 80, 81, 82, 84]. He also moves
this Court for the appointment of specific counsel with whom he has
corresponded. [R. 83]. For reasons stated in this Court’s February 2015
order, and because Bonner has been granted the benefit of counsel, his
motions and filings [R. 78, 80, 81, 82, 84] are STRICKEN.
Regarding his motion to appoint counsel, Bonner is not entitled to
demand that specific counsel be appointed for him, as recognized by
counsel’s letter to Bonner. [R. 83, PgID 1854]. It is the duty of the Court to
determine appropriate and willing counsel. The Court will take into
1

See MDOC Offender Tracking Information System,
http://mdocweb.state.mi.us/OTIS2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=397095,
last accessed May 27, 2015.
2

consideration the letter Bonner presents in assessing the willingness of
counsel. However, his motion to appoint counsel [R. 83] is otherwise
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 27, 2015
Detroit, Michigan

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which
provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district
judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF
System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on May 27, 2015.
s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager

3