Alexander v. Calzetta et al

Filing 82

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 81 Motion for Order to Show Cause--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
D’ANDRE ALEXANDER
# 731077,
Plaintiff

Case No. 2:16-CV-13293
District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

v.
NICHOLAS GALZETTA,
FRED GOVERN, ERICA
HUSS, DARRIN VIITALA,
MANDI SALMI, KENNETH
NIEMISTO, KRISTINE
GIESEN, TERRY MEDEN,
CHAD LaCOUNT, HANNA
SAAD, DR. ROSEN, C/O
WATKINS, C/O LEWIS, C/O
LEE, C/O SLAUGHTER, C/O
HOUSTON, DAPHNE M.
JOHNSON and RICHARD
IDEMUDIA
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE AND ORDERING ENFORCEMENT OF
MDOC PD 05.03.116 (DE 81)
A.

Background and Discussion
D’Andre Alexander (#731077) is currently incarcerated at the Michigan

Department of Corrections (MDOC) Gus Harrison Correctional Facility (ARF) in
Adrian, 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, who are described as
follows:


nine (9) Defendants are associated with the MDOC’s
Marquette Branch Prison (MBP) (Calzetta, Govern, Giesen,
Viitala, LaCount, Niemisto, Huss, Salmi and Meden),



eight (8) Defendants are associated with the MDOC’s
Woodland Center Correctional Facility (WCC) (Saad, Rosen,
Watkins, Lewis, Lee, Slaughter, Houston and Idemudia), and



one (1) Defendant is associated with the MDOC’s Office of
Legal Affairs (Johnson).

(DE 1.) On September 16, 2016, the Court recognized Plaintiff’s indigency by
granting his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. (DE 4.) 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. (DE 8.)
The State Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on June 27,
2017 (DE 46)1 and Defendant Terry Meden filed his motion for summary judgment
on July 11, 2017. (DE 53, 54.) The Court ordered responses to the two motions

1

Defendants’ motion identifies the “State Defendants” as Defendants Nicholas
Calzetta, Fred Govern, Erica Huss, Darrin Viitala, Mandi Salmi, Kenneth
Niemisto, Kristine Giesen, Chad LaCount, Melvin Watkins, John Lewis, Rodney
Lee, Kyle Slaughter, Bobby Houston, Daphne Johnson, and Richard Idemudia.
(DE 46 at 2.)
2

for summary judgment by August 18 and August 17, 2017, respectively. (DEs 48,
57.) Plaintiff did not file a response to either motion, but instead filed various
motions to stay or for an enlargement of time to respond. (See DEs 51, 58, 63, 64.)
On January 3, 2018, the Court entered an order, in part denying the motions to stay
and granting the motion for an extension of time to file a response/reply, and
ordering Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment
by January 22, 2018, and that Defendants may file reply briefs on or before
February 1, 2018. (DE 76.)
On January 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for enlargement of time to file
his response to the summary judgment motions (DE 80) and a motion for order to
show cause (DE 81), in which he complains that an employee of the law library
(Sloamski) is refusing to make copies of exhibits Plaintiff wants to attach to his
response brief. On January 22, 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion
for extension, and ordered that Plaintiff’s response is now due by January 29,
2018, and that he may file supplemental exhibits, if necessary, after his response
brief has been filed, but that the Court will not consider any material received after
the reply brief deadline. (Text-only Order, 1/22/2018.) Plaintiff’s motion to show
cause requests an order that Sloamski, the law library employee, “make [] copies of
all of Plaintiff’s exhibits so he can file his pleadings,” and “[t]hat Sloamski show

3

cause why there shouldn’t be a charge of .50¢ per page of Plaintiff’s exhibits if he
has to file all of his original copies of his exhibits with the court.” (DE 81 at 2.)
The Court takes judicial notice of the Michigan Department of Corrections
Policy Directive 05.03.116, Prisoners’ Access to the Courts, which, in pertinent
part, reads as follows:
LEGAL PHOTOCOPYING SERVICES
M. Prisoners shall be provided photocopying services to obtain copies
of items needed for legal research. Prisoners also shall be provided
photocopying services to obtain copies of documents in their
possession, or available to them in the law library, which are
necessary for the prisoner to file with a court or serve on a party to a
lawsuit. Prisoners shall use the Legal Photocopy Disbursement
Authorization form (CSJ-602) to request photocopying; the forms
shall be available to prisoners in the housing unit and institutional
law libraries. A fee of 10 cents shall be charged for each page
copied.
N. Prisoners who lack sufficient funds to pay for copies of documents in
their possession, or available to them in the law library, which are
necessary for the prisoner to file with the court or serve on a party to
a lawsuit shall be loaned funds to pay for the copying. Funds shall
not be loaned, however, for copying a document which can
otherwise be reproduced by the prisoner, except if the document is
notarized or was created for the prisoner through the Legal Writer
Program and as otherwise required by court order for service of a
federal lawsuit.
O. A prisoner may be required to present documentation (e.g., court
rule, copy of the pleading) to show that requested copies are
necessary. If the prisoner presents his/her personal legal materials,
staff shall read only those portions that are necessary to determine
whether the copies will be provided and, if applicable, whether funds
will be loaned. If a loan is approved, it shall be considered an
4

institutional debt and collected as set forth in PD 04.02.105
“Prisoner Funds.”
MDOC PD 05.03.116 (“Prisoners’ Access to the Courts”), effective Oct. 17,
2014 (emphasis added).
It is not clear whether Plaintiff here is arguing that he is entitled to free
copies of these documents (which he is not), or where the purported charge of .50¢
per page comes from (as set forth above, the PD provides for a charge of 10 cents
per page). In any event, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff is entitled to the
benefits and enforcement of this policy directive.
B.

Order

Accordingly, the Court orders that Plaintiff, who is proceeding in forma
pauperis, is entitled to obtain the benefits provided in MDOC PD 05.03.116 (MO), including the provisions of photocopies at a fee of 10 cents per page copied,
and the loan of necessary funds in connection therewith which are needed to
comply with this Order, the M.D.O.C. being so directed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 22, 2018

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

5

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on January 22, 2018, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

6