Mann v. Schlottman et al

Filing 27

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part (1) Plaintiff's 23 Motion for Stay, and (2) Plaintiff's 26 Emergency Motion for Extension of Time, and Denying Plaintiff's 25 Motion for Proof of Service. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JACK MANN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-12869
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
SOE SCHLOTTMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART (1) PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR STAY (ECF #23), AND (2) PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF #26), AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROOF OF SERVICE (ECF #25)
Plaintiff Jack Mann (“Mann”) is an inmate currently in the custody of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons. (See ECF #1.) He has brought an action against
various federal corrections officers and officials, the Bureau of Prisons, and the
Department of Justice (collectively, “Defendants”). (See Compl., ECF #1.) Mann
originally filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (the “Application”) in
this action. (See ECF ## 3, 5). But Mann failed to cure deficiencies with the
Application on three separate occasions, and the Court dismissed his Complaint
without prejudice on October 27, 2015. (See ECF #10.) Mann thereafter chose to
forgo proceeding in forma pauperis, and paid the Court’s $350 filing fee and $50
administrative fee on December 21, 2015. (See ECF #19.)

1

The Court then

reopened Mann’s case on December 23, 2015. (See id.) After the Court reopened
Mann’s case, it issued summonses for each Defendant on January 7, 2016. (See
ECF #21.) To date, Mann has not served any Defendant with a summons or the
Complaint in this action.
Since the Court reopened Mann’s case, he has filed three motions, which are
currently before the Court. First, on February 1, 2016, Mann filed a “Motion for
Stay in Proceedings” in which he requested that the Court stay all deadlines in this
matter pending his transfer to a new correctional facility (the “Motion for Stay”).
(See ECF #23.) But at the time Mann filed the Motion for Stay, the Court had not
issued a scheduling order and no deadlines had been set in this action. The only
deadline in place was Mann’s obligation to serve each Defendant with a summons
and Complaint by May 6, 2016 (120 days from January 7, 2016 – the date the
summonses were issued). Accordingly, the Court will construe the Motion for
Stay as a motion to extend the expiration date of the summonses, and the Court
will extend the expiration date for sixty days. The summonses will now expire on
July 5, 2016.
Second, on April 1, 2016, Mann filed a “Motion for Proof of Service” in
which he requested that the Court provide him with, among other things,1 (1)

1

Mann also requested that the Court provide him with a copy of his “Motion for
Evidence on the Record.” (ECF #25 at ¶ C, Pg. ID 171.) The Court grants Mann’s
2

“copies of proof of service on all Defendants,” and (2) the “proper name and
address of the attorney for the defense.” (See Motion for Stay, ECF #25 at ¶¶ A, B,
Pg. ID 171.) It appears Mann believes that another party is responsible for serving
each Defendant with a summons and Complaint. Mann is incorrect. He must
serve a summons and Complaint on each Defendant, see Vartinelli v. Caruso, No.
07-12388, 2008 WL 192315, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 23, 2008), and he must do so
before the summonses expire on July 5, 2016.

He must also file a certificate of

service with the Clerk of this Court confirming that he has timely served the
summonses and the Complaint. Accordingly, the Motion for Proof of Service is
denied.
Third, on April 20, 2016, Mann filed an Emergency Motion for Time
Extension because he is being transferred to another facility for medical treatment.
(See ECF #26.) In the Emergency Motion for Time Extension, Mann asserts that
he “will be without his legal property for a few months, more than likely, and
unable to respond to any of this Court’s findings, any pleadings, or any responses
by the defendant.” (See id. at ¶ 4, Pg. ID 175.) As explained above, the only
deadline in place is the expiration date of the summonses – which the Court has
extended.

request and will enclose a copy of that motion with this Order. Moving forward,
however, Mann will be required to pay court fees for all documents requested.
3

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Motion for Stay (ECF #23) and Emergency Motion for Extension of
Time (ECF #26) are construed as motions to extend the expiration date of
the summonses, and the motions are GRANTED in that respect. The
summonses shall expire on July 5, 2016. In all other respects, these
motions are DENIED.
2. Mann’s Motion for Proof of Service (ECF #25) requesting copies of
proof of service and requesting defense counsel’s name and address is
DENIED. Mann shall serve each Defendant with a summons and
Complaint by July 5, 2016, and he shall file a certificate of service with
the Clerk of this Court.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 21, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on April 21, 2016, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4