Pugh v. Napel

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Inadvertently filed complaint Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TERRANCE PUGH, Petitioner, v. Case No. 15-11720 ROBERT NAPEL, ET AL., Respondent. _______________________________________/ ORDER DISMISSING INADVERTENTLY FILED COMPLAINT Plaintiff state prisoner Terrence Pugh has filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his pending civil rights case. On May 13, 2015, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a document with this court labeled a “Notice of Appeal.” The document alleged that Plaintiff was transferred to another prison in disregard of a “Special Problem Offender Notice,” and as a result he was beaten by other inmates. The document stated that the named defendants should be held liable and not granted immunity. The clerks office docketed the filing as a complaint. On May 15, 2015, the court issued two orders ordering Plaintiff to correct filing deficiencies regarding his failure to pay the filing fee and providing enough copies of his complaint for service. Plaintiff has subsequently filed three letters with the court (Dkt. ## 5, 6, 7) indicating that he never intended to file a complaint with this court, and that the initiating document relates to an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit relating to a previous lawsuit that was mistakenly docketed with this court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. s/Robert H. Cleland ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: September 4, 2015 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, September 4, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Lisa Wagner Case Manager and Deputy Clerk (313) 234-5522 -2-

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?