Alexander v. Calzetta et al

Filing 71

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's 49 Motion--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 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

www.michigan.gov/corrections, “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