Dunbar v. Heyns et al

Filing 45

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 40 Motion for Order Directing Michigan Department of Corrections to Deliver Petitioners Legal Papers and Other Personal Property; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 41 Motion for Order to be Transferred to a Federal Pr ison; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND 42 Motion for Order to be Transferred to a Federal Prison; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S THIRD 43 Motion for Order to be Transferred to a Federal Prison; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY 44 Motion for Order for Transfer to a Federal Prison and to Deliver Legal Documents and Personal Property - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSEPH DUNBAR,
Plaintiff,

No. 15-11573

v.

District Judge Denise Page Hood
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

DANIEL HEYNS, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
Plaintiff, a prison inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of
Corrections (“MDOC”) has filed a pro se civil complaint alleging numerous claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as an apparent habeas corpus claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1
He has presented the following motions:
-Motion for Order Directing MDOC to Deliver Plaintiff’s Legal Papers and Other
Personal Property [Doc. #40].
-Motion for Transfer to a Federal Prison [Doc. #41].
-Second Motion for Transfer to a Federal Prison [Doc. #42].
-Third Motion for Transfer to a Federal Prison [Doc. #43].

1

Plaintiff appears to claim that he is entitled to release because he has served his
sentence of 20 to 40 years for first-degree criminal conduct plus a consecutive two years
for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (“felony-firearm”), and was
not awarded disciplinary credits. He also claims that MDOC officials injected him with
the Hepatitis C virus, that he is not receiving medical treatment, that MDOC officials
threatened to “shoot him up with medicine to shut him up,” that MDOC officials placed a
dangerous prisoner in his cell so that he would be attacked, that he is in imminent danger,
that he is actually innocent of the offenses of which he was convicted, that he is being
threatened by other inmates, and that MDOC officials are not processing his grievances.
-1-

-Emergency Motion for Transfer to a Federal Prison and to Deliver Legal
Documents and Personal Property [Doc. #44].2
A.

Return of Property

Plaintiff asks in very general terms that unspecified legal documents and personal
property, such as pictures, cosmetics, and batteries, be returned to him. He does not state
who has this property, or how he came to be dispossessed of it. His complaint does not
contain a claim involving lost property. He does not allege that any of the Defendants in
this case have his property, and in any event, none of the Defendants have been served.
This Court does not have personal jurisdiction over any person or entity that might have
his property. Indeed, in Motion #40, he bases his relief on MDOC Policy Directive
04.07.112. Therefore, at this point, the Plaintiff’s remedy regarding lost property lies
within the MDOC grievance procedure, not in this Court.
B.

Transfer to Federal Prison3

This Court does not have the authority to order Plaintiff’s transfer from the MDOC
to a federal prison for service of his State of Michigan sentence. In Fisher v. Goord, 981
F. Supp. 140, 176 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), the Court held that “when a state has primary
custodial jurisdiction over an inmate, a federal court cannot order the delivery of the
defendant for service of a sentence in a federal institution. Such an order would be
tantamount to a transfer of custody beyond the jurisdiction of the federal court.”
2

On June 3, 2015, Plaintiff also filed a motion for transfer to a federal prison
[Doc. #11]. That motion was denied as moot when the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s
complaint without prejudice on October 8, 2015, for failure to prosecute [Doc. #18]. On
January 6, 2017, the Sixth Circuit vacated the order of dismissal and remanded for further
proceedings [Doc. #35].
3

This is not the first case in which Plaintiff asked for and was denied transfer to a
federal prison. See Dunbar v. Caruso, E.D. Mich. No. 11-10123, Doc. #20 and #32 at 1617.
-2-

C.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions [Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44] are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: June 26, 2017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on June 26, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager to the
Honorable R. Steven Whalen

-3-