Christenson et al v. Michigan, State of et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying plaintiffs' Motion to clarify 44 , denying motion to enter evidence 47 and enjoining plaintiffs from filing further motions and requests in this lawsuit without leave of court. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES CHRISTENSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 15-14441
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

vs.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE,
JAMES OSTERHOUT, and
TIMOTHY TOMLINSON,
Defendants.
____________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CLARIFY, (DOC. 45),
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENTER EVIDENCE, (DOC. 47),
AND ENJOINING PLAINTIFFS FROM FILING FURTHER MOTIONS AND
REQUESTS IN THIS LAWSUIT WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT.
On January 24, 2017, the Court entered an opinion and order
granting defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. (Doc. 31). Plaintiffs thereafter filed two motions to alter or
amend the judgment, (Doc. 33, 34), and a motion to reconsider, (Doc. 39).
The Court issued two orders denying these motions. (Doc. 39, 43). This
matter is presently before the Court on plaintiffs’ Motion to Clarify these
orders, (Doc. 44), and plaintiffs’ Motion to Enter Evidence, (Doc. 47). For
the reasons stated below, both motions are DENIED and plaintiffs are

-1-

enjoined from filing further motions and requests in this lawsuit without
leave of court.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Clarify raises the same issues that the Court
previously addressed in three opinions and orders. See (Doc. 31, 39, 43).
Plaintiffs phrase these issues as questions for the Court to consider. But,
federal courts “do not render advisory opinions.” Golden v. Zwicker, 394
U.S. 103, 108 (1969). Further, the Court may not provide plaintiffs with
legal advice. Smith v. Palmer, No. 11-CV-12765, 2011 WL 2623301, at *12 (E.D. Mich. July 5, 2011). Plaintiffs’ Motions to Clarify, (Doc. 44), is,
therefore, DENIED.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enter Evidence asks the Court to admit a letter,
dated October 23, 2017, which states a final notice of plaintiffs noncompliance with “Chapter 202 of the City of Roseville Codified Code of
Ordinances: Failure to Obtain a Certificate of Compliance for Non-Owner
Occupied Housing.” (Doc. 47 at PageID 379). Plaintiffs assert that this
notice means prosecution is eminent. Plaintiffs’ motion fails for several
reasons. First, it improperly seeks to enter evidence post-judgment and
after the Court denied motions to alter and reconsider that judgment. The
case is closed and the Court shall not admit additional evidence. Moreover,
the City of Roseville is not threatening action based on refusal to permit
-2-

inspection; the injury alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint. Instead, the City of
Roseville merely provided notice of potential enforcement action relating to
plaintiffs’ use of their property as non-owner occupied housing, which is
addressed by a different chapter of the City of Roseville Codified Code of
Ordinances. This does not constitute prosecution for refusing consent for a
warrantless search in violation of Camara v. Municipal Court of City and
County of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 532-34 (1967). Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Enter Evidence, (Doc. 47), is, therefore, DENIED.
In their response briefs, (Doc. 45, 48), defendants ask the Court to
sanction plaintiffs and require them to pay $1000 for costs defendants
incurred in responding to plaintiffs’ duplicative and frivolous post-judgment
motions. The Court shall not sanction plaintiffs. It will, however, enjoin
plaintiffs from filing further documents in this case without leave of court.
The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, grants a district court power to
enjoin a party from filing suits attempting to reopen or relitigate closed
cases. Spencer v. Slone, 785 F.2d 310 (6th Cir. 1986) (table). “This power
extends to enjoining further filings in support of frivolous and vexatious
claims.” Id. Plaintiffs have filed five post-judgment motions that attempt to
relitigate issues addressed in the Court’s original opinion and order
dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for lack of standing. This Court must protect its
-3-

jurisdiction from vexatious litigants abusing the judicial process. Thus, to
prevent plaintiffs from further abusing the legal process, they are hereby
PRECLUDED AND RESTRAINED from filing any new motions or requests
in this case without initially obtaining leave of this Court.
To obtain leave, plaintiffs must initially comply with all of the following
requirements:
1. They must file a “Motion Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave
to File” with any proposed motion or request; and
2. As an exhibit to that motion, they must attach a declaration
prepared pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 or a sworn affidavit
certifying that the document they wish to present is a new issue
which has never been raised by them in court.
Failure to comply with these terms may itself be grounds for denying any
motion for leave to file. Compliance with these terms does not, of itself,
constitute grounds for granting leave to file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 14, 2017
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
December 14, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and
also on James Christenson, 22014 Fresard,
Saint Clair Shores, MI 48080.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-5-