Alexander v. Calzetta et al

Filing 71

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's 49 Motion--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 DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S JULY 5, 2017 MOTION FOR CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER (DE 49) D’Andre Alexander (#731077) is currently incarcerated at the MDOC’s Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility (MTU) in Ionia, Michigan. See, “Offender Search.” On September 8, 2016, while incarcerated at Macomb Correctional Facility (MRF), Alexander 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.) This case has been referred to me for all pretrial matters. There are multiple motions pending, including Plaintiff’s July 5, 2017 “motion for case management order.” (DE 49.) Upon consideration, this motion is DENIED WITHOUT 1    PREJUDICE. First, the Court suspects that Plaintiff’s authority for this request is Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) (“Scheduling.”). However, the Local Rules of this Court provide, in part, that “all actions in which one of the parties appears pro se and is incarcerated[]” shall be “exempted from the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), unless otherwise ordered by the Judge to whom the action or proceeding is assigned[.]” E.D. Mich. LR 16.1(e)(1). Second, as to those Defendants who have appeared, each has filed a dispositive motion:  On June 27, 2017, the fifteen state defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (DE 46.) Plaintiff’s response was due August 18, 2017 (DE 48); however, Plaintiff has filed a motion to stay summary judgment (DE 51).  Defendant Meden filed a motion for summary judgment on July 11, 2017. (DE 53; see also DE 54.) Plaintiff’s response was due on August 17, 2017 (DE 57). Here, too, Plaintiff has filed a motion to stay summary judgment. (DE 58.)1 Third, service of process as to the two defendants who have yet to appear – Haad and Rosen – is ongoing. Nonetheless, Plaintiff may renew his request if his case survives initial dispositive motion practice, such as defense motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment.                                                              1 In addition, Plaintiff has filed a motion for expedited consideration of his motions to stay summary judgment (DE 63) and a motion for enlargement of time to respond to the motions for summary judgment (DE 64), should the Court deny Plaintiff’s motions to stay (DEs 51, 58).  2    IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 2, 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 October 2, 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?