Powell v. Internal Revenue Service

Filing 38

ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES and STRIKING Plaintiff's Notice 35 .,., ( Amendment to Pleadings by 10/31/2015, Dispositive Motion Cut-off set for 1/15/2016)--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM E. POWELL,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-11033
JUDGE PAUL D. BORMAN
MAGISTRATE JUDGE ANTHONY P. PATTI

v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendant.

ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES and STRIKING
PLAINTIFF’S OCTOBER 13, 2015 NOTICE (DE 35)
This case is one of three Plaintiff has filed in this Court against the Internal
Revenue Service.1
(DE 1.)

Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit pro se on March 19, 2015.

He is proceeding in forma pauperis. (See DEs 2, 5 & 13.)

This case has been referred to me for all pretrial matters. (See DEs 26, 29.)
On September 18, 2015, I entered an order (DE 32) construing Plaintiff’s
September 15, 2015 motion (DE 31) as a motion for entry of a case management
scheduling order and granting such motion. Thereafter, the IRS filed a report
pursuant to Fed. Rules Civ. P. 16 and 26. (DE 34.) Plaintiff then filed a notice

See also Powell v. IRS, Case No. 2:14-cv-12626-SFC-MJH (judgment entered on
Sept. 9, 2015) and Powell v. IRS, 2:15-cv-11616-PDB-APP.
1

1

with regard to Defendant’s dates to commence summary judgment (DE 35),2 the
parties’ joint report pursuant to Fed. Rules Civ. P. 16 and 26 (DE 36), and a
corrected and revised proposed joint report pursuant to Rules 16 and 26 (DE 37).
Having received the parties’ proposed plans, I enter the following case
management scheduling order:
 Any further amendment to the pleadings shall be filed by October 31, 2015,
with any responding pleading to be filed within 14 days of service.
 Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than January 15, 2016, with
opposition and reply briefs filed in accordance with the E.D. Mich. LRs.
 If the Court deems Discovery appropriate and necessary, it will be
completed in accordance with the timeframe set by the Court at the end of
the parties’ Summary Judgment briefing.3
 Finally, if this case survives dispositive motion practice, the Court will
determine whether any additionally scheduling dates are necessary.

Among other things, Plaintiff’s October 13, 2015 “notice with regard to
Defendant’s dates to commence summary judgment,” (DE 35) asks the Court to
“acknowledge” certain matters, seems to claim that not starting summary judgment
briefing until February 2016 will delay or stall his cases, and contends Plaintiff did
not consent to Defendant’s October 2, 2015 report (DE 34). The Court will not
“acknowledge” anything, as its records speak for themselves. Moreover, the filing
does not contain a clear prayer for relief. Also, Plaintiff’s requests regarding
records and documents are more properly the subject of a discovery motion. For
these reasons, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to strike Plaintiff’s October 13,
2015 notice (DE 35).

2

3

“Procedurally, district courts typically dispose of FOIA cases on summary
judgment before a plaintiff can conduct discovery.” Rugiero v. United States
Department of Justice, 257 F.Supp.3d 534, 544 (6th Cir. 2001).
2

Moreover, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to strike Plaintiff’s October 13,
2015 notice (DE 35).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2015

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on October 22, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

3