Cage v. Michigan, State of et al

Filing 94

ORDER (1) Withdrawing Reference to Magistrate Judge, (2) Conditionally Appointing Counsel for Plaintiff, (3) Striking All of Plaintiff's Pending Motions and Request for Relief Without Prejudice (ECF ## 12, 22, 53, 64, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 87 and 91),(4) Denying Plaintiff's 17 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, and (5) Prohibiting Plaintiff from Making Any Additional Filings Until Further Order of the Court. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
HAROLD CAGE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-11679
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) WITHDRAWING REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE,
(2) CONDITIONALLY APPOINTING COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF, (3)
STRIKING ALL OF PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS AND REQUESTS
FOR RELIEF WITHOUT PREJUDICE, (4) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF #17), AND
(5) PROHIBITING PLAINTIFF FROM MAKING ANY ADDITIONAL
FILINGS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT
This is a pro se prisoner’s civil rights action. Plaintiff Harold Cage filed a
multi-count Complaint against more than twenty different Defendants who are
employed at several different facilities operated by the Michigan Department of
Corrections. (See ECF #1.)

Since filing the Complaint, Plaintiff has filed

numerous motions and other documents with the Court. Defendants have also filed
two motions – a motion to sever based upon misjoinder of parties and claims and a
motion to stay discovery. (See ECF ## 43, 46.)

1

The Court has conducted a preliminary review of the docket and has
determined that (1) many (if not all) of Plaintiff’s filing appear plainly to lack
merit and/or to be unauthorized under the governing rules and (2) Defendants’
pending motions appear to have merit and are, perhaps, appropriately granted.
Given the current state of the docket, the Court believes that the wisest and most
efficient course of action is (1) to withdraw the order of reference to the Magistrate
Judge (ECF #14) and (2) to conditionally appoint counsel for Plaintiff. Plaintiff
has twice requested such an appointment of counsel, and the Court now
conditionally grants that request. Accordingly, this case is referred to the Pro Bono
Committee. Plaintiff is conditionally granted appointment of counsel provided that
the Committee is successful in enlisting pro bono counsel. If the Committee is
unsuccessful, counsel will not be appointed and Plaintiff will proceed pro se or
retain counsel at his own expense.
In addition, the Court STRIKES WITHOUT PREJUDICE all of
Plaintiff’s pending motions and requests for relief (ECF ## 12, 22, 53, 64, 79, 80,
81, 82, 83, 87, and 91).
Upon the appointment of counsel, counsel shall meet with Plaintiff to
discuss the case and shall review the filings to date by both Plaintiff and
Defendants. Counsel’s initial tasks shall be (1) to determine which, if any, of those
filings by Plaintiff are proper and/or authorized and (2) to communicate to the
2

Court which, if any, of those appropriate prior filings Plaintiff wishes to reinstate.
At that point, the Court will reinstate those prior filings identified as proper by
counsel. In addition, appointed counsel shall determine whether it is appropriate
for Plaintiff to concur in the relief sought by Defendants in their two pending
motions, and counsel shall communicate that determination to the Court.
Finally, on July 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order. (See ECF #17.) The Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation (the “R&R”) in which she recommended that the Court deny
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. (See ECF #74.) At the
conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge instructed Plaintiff that he is
“required to file any objections within 14 days of service” and that a “[f]ailure to
file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal.” (Id. at
4, Pg. ID 1987.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the R&R. As the
Magistrate Judge informed the parties, the failure to file an objection to a report
and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec'y of
Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of
Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to
object releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the

3

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order (ECF #17).
From this point forward and until further order of the Court, Plaintiff is
prohibited from making any additional submissions of any kind to the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Dated: January 23, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on January 23, 2017, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4