Moralez v. Moore et al
ORDER REGARDING Plaintiff's 24 Objection filed by Abelardo Moralez, 22 Letter, 26 Letter.,ORDER Requiring Response to 18 Motion to Dismiss, 31 Motion to Dismiss, 28 Motion to Dismiss, 17 Motion to Dismiss.( Plaintiff's Response due by 6/2/2017)--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 2:17-cv-10567
District Judge Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
MICHAEL SHANNON MOORE,
THOMAS WILSON, AMANDA RISKA,
ROBERT D. MOORE, JASON GANZHORN,
RICHARD MICHAEL KLIMMER,
GERALD WHALEN, GLENN J. PAGE,
PATRICK BURTCH, JENNY MORRIS,
SHERIDAN SURVEYING, P.C.,
THOMAS TINKLEPAUGH, and
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S LETTERS (DEs 22, 24, 26) and
SETTING DEADLINES FOR PENDING MOTIONS (DEs 17, 18, 28 & 31)
Plaintiff brings his lawsuit against thirteen (13) defendants, each of
whom has appeared.
On February 21, 2017, Plaintiff Abelardo Moralez filed the instant lawsuit
on his own behalf against 13 defendants, who are described as follows:
Michael Shannon Moore and Robert D. Moore of Moore Co.,
Honorable Thomas Wilson and Amanda Riska of the Jackson
County Circuit Court,
Officers Jason Ganzhorn, Richard Michael Klimmer, Thomas
Tinklepaugh and Adam Brooker of the City of Jackson Police
Patrick Burtch and Jennifer Morris of the City of Jackson,
Gerald A. Whalen of the Department of Attorney General
Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Division,
Glenn J. Page of the Judicial Tenure Commission, and
Sheridan Surveying, P.C.
(DE 1 at 2 ¶¶ 5-12.) Plaintiff’s complaint seems to bring a total of seven different
counts and seeks “1983 federal litigated damages” and “money jury award
relief[.]” (DE 1 at 1-21; see also DE 1 at 22-47.)
There are four (4) pending dispositive motions filed on behalf of six (6)
of the Defendants.
This case has been referred to me to conduct pretrial matters. (DE 3.)
Currently before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Michael
Shannon Moore and Robert D. Moore (DE 17), Judge Thomas Wilson and
Amanda Riska (DE 18), Glenn J. Page (DE 28), and Gerald Whalen (DE 31).
On March 31, 2017, I entered an order setting a May 15, 2017 deadline for
Plaintiff’s response to the first two motions to dismiss. (DE 19.) On May 3, 2017,
I entered an order setting a June 2, 2017 deadline for Plaintiff’s response to the
third motion to dismiss. (DE 29.)
Plaintiff has filed various items which warrant direction by the Court. First,
Plaintiff should familiarize himself with the Local Rules of this Court, especially
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1, which concerns motion practice. This rule requires a moving
party to seek concurrence from the opposing party before filing a motions or
request. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a)(1). If concurrence was sought but not obtained, this
must be reflected in the motion or request. (E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a)(2); see, e.g., DE
17 at 2 ¶ 3, DE 28 at 3,). Seemingly in response to such efforts by counsel for the
Moore Defendants, Plaintiff has sent the Court an objection “to motion to dismiss
with concurrence.” (DE 24 at 1, DE 26 at 1; see also DE 26 at 2.) If Plaintiff does
not agree with the moving party’s motion or request, then he should file a
response. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(c)(1) (“A respondent opposing a motion must
file a response, including a brief and supporting documents then available.”).
Ordinarily, responses respond to the substance of the arguments made in the
Second, Plaintiff has contacted the Court in an effort to “perfect service”
upon Defendant Whalen. (DE 26 at 1, DE 24 at 1.) According to Plaintiff, he
spoke with Assistant Attorney General Felepe H. Hall on April 7, 2017, who
allegedly took issue with Plaintiff’s March 15, 2017 service by Bruce D. Boone
and Associates, L.L.C., upon Defendant Whalen in care of Bonnie Czaika
(seemingly of Michigan’s Liquor Control Commission). (See DE 24 at 2-4.)
However, it is now worth noting that, either by appearances of counsel, answers
and/or motions, each of the thirteen (13) defendants has appeared. This includes
Defendant Whalen, who appeared on May 17, 2017. (See DEs 6, 15, 16, 30, 32,
33; DEs 14, 20, 27; DE 28, 31).
The Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s statement that defense counsel did
not provide Plaintiff with copies of the March 28, 2017 notice of appearance
or same-day motion to dismiss (DE 16, 17), but it seems that the Clerk’s
Office has since mailed copies to him. (DE 22 at 1 ¶¶ 1, 3.) In his April 14,
2017 filing, Plaintiff also stated that “four motions” would be filed “within (7)
To date, Plaintiff has not filed a motion.
represented that “two re[s]ponses” would be filed “in accordance with the
federal court ORDER[,]” presumably the Court’s March 31, 2017 order
setting a May 15, 2017 deadline for two of the pending motions to dismiss
(DE 17, DE 18). (DE 19). To date, no such response has been filed.
Upon consideration, no later than June 2, 2017, Plaintiff shall file
responses to the four (4) pending motions to dismiss. (DEs 17, 18, 28 & 31).
Defendants shall file any reply in accordance with E.D. Mich. LR
7.1(e)(1)(C). Once this briefing period concludes, I will enter a report and
recommendation as to these motions for Judge Michelson’s consideration.
While the Court is aware that Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel,
letters to the Court – such as those discussed above (DEs 22, 24, 26) are not
pleadings and will be returned. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7; see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff is cautioned that his filings in this case should comply
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the E.D. Mich.,
and my practice guidelines, the latter two of which are available on the
Court’s website (www.mied.uscourts.gov).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 23, 2017
s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of
record on May 23, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti
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?