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)

Download PDF
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TO WITHDRAW HIS MOTION FOR A TRO AND A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, GRANTING THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW (DE 56) and DEEMING WITHDRAWN THE UNDERLYING MOTION (DE 43) On September 8, 2016, while incarcerated at Macomb Correctional Facility (MRF), D’Andre Alexander (#731077) filed the instant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 The motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s underlying motion is DEEMED WITHDRAWN.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, “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   

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?