Mann v. Schlottman et al

Filing 56

ORDER Staying Certain Motions (ECF ## 39, 42, 52) and Enjoining Plaintiff from Making Any Additional Filings Without Approval of the Court. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Download PDF
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 STAYING CERTAIN MOTIONS (ECF ## 39, 42, 52) AND ENJOINING PLAINTIFF FROM MAKING ANY ADDITIONAL FILINGS WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE COURT Plaintiff Jack Mann (“Mann”) is an inmate currently in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (the “BOP”). On August 7, 2015, Mann brought a pro se action against Defendants. (See Complaint, ECF #1). On July 6, 2016, Mann filed an Amended Complaint. (See Amended Complaint, ECF #31.) There are two dispositive motions now pending before the Court. First, on November 29, 2016, Mann filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (See ECF #40.) Second, on December 6, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. (See ECF #44.) For the purpose of docket efficiency, the Court concludes that these dispositive motions must be addressed and ruled upon before any additional steps are taken in this action. 1   Despite the pendency of the dispositive motions, Mann continues to file additional motions. In addition to his Motion for Summary Judgment, Mann has filed three motions: (1) a “Motion for Judgment on the Merits of the Case; or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment or Motion for Court Annexed Arbitration” (ECF #39); (2) a “Motion for Depositions in Person; or in the Alternative, Depositions via Video Web Scenario; or in the Alternative, Depositions via Telephonic Conference; or in the Alternative for Written Interrogatories of Each Defendant” (ECF #42); and (3) a “Motion to Compel Alternative Resolution Through and by Local Rule 16.3 Alternative Dispute Resolution” (ECF #52). All proceedings on these motions are STAYED pending further order of the Court. Mann has also submitted a variety of other filings that are not authorized under the governing rules. See, e.g., “Motion to Include Attached Affidavit as Evidence for the Record of this Court,” (ECF #18), and “Motion for Evidence to be Included on the Record Providing Proof the Defendants are Attempting to Derail Plaintiff Mann's Complaint and for Other Relief” (ECF #36). To prevent any future improper filings that would unnecessarily complicate the case’s docket and needlessly burden the Court and the Defendants, the Court temporarily ENJOINS Mann from making any additional filings in this action without prior approval of the Court. Until further order of the Court, the Clerk of 2   the Court shall not accept any filings by Mann without express permission of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: January 19, 2017 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on January 19, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Monda Case Manager (313) 234-5113 3  

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?