Dillard v. Wayne County District and Circuit Court of the State of Michigan et al

Filing 32

ORDER STRIKING 31 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (McColley, N)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION EDDIE L. DILLARD, #254178, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-10198 HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW v. WAYNE CO. DIST. & CIR. CT, et al., Defendants. / ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [DKT #31] This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s latest request for post-judgment relief, a motion for preliminary injunction, concerning the Court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint (which challenged his state criminal proceedings and raised claims regarding the validity of the felony warrant, the state court’s jurisdiction, and the judicial officers’ authority) on January 31, 2014. The Court has denied Plaintiff’s previous motions for post-judgment relief and has since stricken his continued, repetitive motions to reopen this closed case. The instant request shall be stricken. The Court informed Plaintiff in a July 8, 2014 order that the case is closed and that future filings would be stricken. Plaintiff’s continued requests for post-judgment relief are frivolous. The Court properly dismissed the complaint pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), for failure to state a claim against the state courts who are not persons subject to suit, and on the basis of Eleventh Amendment and judicial immunity. The Court also properly refused to reopen this case and/or to grant other relief from judgment. Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. This case is closed. No further pleadings should be filed in this matter. Further pleadings will be stricken. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Arthur J. Tarnow ARTHUR J. TARNOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: April 9, 2020

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?