Lyle v. Jackson, et al

Filing 161

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 156 Motion to Compel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROGER LYLE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 4:00-cv-40280
District Judge Linda V. Parker
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

SHOEMUKER, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL TESTIMONY
(DE 156)
This action has been closed since April 22, 2002. (DE 105.) Plaintiff, a
state prisoner who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed the instant
motion on November 7, 2016, asking the Court to compel the testimony of his
criminal attorney, James Brisbois, and the Honorable Fred J. Borchard. Plaintiff
asserts that such testimony will provide proof about counsel’s refusal to accept a
plea deal. (DE 156 at ¶ 1.) For the reasons outlined below, Plaintiff’s motion is
DENIED.
As a preliminary matter, this case was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff now appears to seek the testimony of his criminal attorney and the judge
presiding over his criminal case as an attempt to challenge the fact or duration of
his confinement, which is properly brought as a habeas petition. See Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (holding that “when a state prisoner is
challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment . . . his sole
federal remedy is habeas corpus.”). To the extent Plaintiff seeks relief related to
the fact or duration of his confinement, the Court makes no ruling on the substance
of his claim.
Plaintiff’s case has been closed since 2002. (DE 106.) Although he has
made numerous attempts at reopening the action, all have been fruitless. In the
instant motion, he provides no reason for compelling testimony from individuals
involved in the criminal case leading to his confinement. Further, although it is
unclear on what topic Judge Borchard is expected to testify, an examination of the
“mental processes” of a judge in arriving at a decision is not permitted. United
States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 422 (1941). Again, this case is closed, there are
no pending dispositive motions, and there will not be a trial. Plaintiff does not
provide any reason for compelling unnecessary testimony from individuals
unrelated to this closed § 1983 action.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is

DENIED. (DE 156.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2017

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on March 1, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

3