Alexander v. Calzetta et al

Filing 70

ORDER withdrawing 43 Motion for TRO; granting 56 Motion to Stay--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
D’ANDRE ALEXANDER,
Case No. 2:16-cv-13293
District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

Plaintiff,
v.
NICHOLAS CALZETTA, et al.
Defendants.
__________________________/

ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY AS A MOTION
TO WITHDRAW HIS MOTION FOR A TRO AND A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION, GRANTING THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW (DE 56) and
DEEMING WITHDRAWN THE UNDERLYING MOTION (DE 43)
On September 8, 2016, while incarcerated at Macomb Correctional Facility
(MRF), D’Andre Alexander (#731077) filed the instant lawsuit against 18
defendants.

The facts underlying Plaintiff’s complaint span the period from

February 2, 2015, when Plaintiff was incarcerated at MBP, through February 2016,
when Plaintiff was incarcerated at WCC. (DE 1 at 2 ¶ 4, DE 1 at 3-7 ¶¶ 13-48.)
Sixteen Defendants have appeared, and service as to the remaining two defendants
– Haas and Rosen – is ongoing.
This case has been referred to me for all pretrial matters.

Among the

multiple motions pending in this case are: (1) Plaintiff’s June 26, 2017 motion for
a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction (DE 43), filed while

1 

Plaintiff was incarcerated at MRF and seeking entry of an order requiring the
MDOC to place him in protective custody, “long term pursuant to [MDOC] [Police
Directive] 05.01.140 . . . [;]” and (2) Plaintiff’s July 12, 2017 motion to stay the
motion for TRO and preliminary injunction (DE 56), filed while Plaintiff was
incarcerated at Chippewa Correctional Facility (URF) and requesting that the
Court stay his motion for TRO and preliminary injunction, pending his transfer.
Significantly, the prayer for relief in Plaintiff’s motion to stay does not mention
protective custody; instead, it is focused on transfer. (DE 56 at 2.)
The Court appreciates Plaintiff’s desire “to not un[n]ecessarily utilize” the
Court’s “authority and resources[.]” (DE 56 at 1.) Upon consideration, Plaintiff’s
motion to stay (DE 56) is CONSTRUED as a motion to withdraw his motion for
TRO and preliminary injunction (DE 43). The motion to withdraw is GRANTED,
and Plaintiff’s underlying motion is DEEMED WITHDRAWN. In so doing, the
Court notes that the MDOC’s Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) lists
Alexander’s current location as the Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility
(MTU) in Ionia, Michigan.

See www.michigan.gov/corrections, “Offender

Search.” MTU differs from the return address on Plaintiff’s motion to stay – URF.
As such, it appears that Plaintiff achieved the transfer he sought. Moreover, given
the way he has phrased this motion to stay – namely, if transferred he would move
to strike his motion for TRO / preliminary injunction and if not transferred he
2 

would request a hearing - his motion for TRO / preliminary injunction would be
rendered moot by his transfer. Plaintiff may renew his request if this is not the
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2017

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on September 29, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

3