Stenberg v. Corizon Medical Services Inc. et al

Filing 73

ORDER Terminating Without Prejudice (1) Plaintiff's 3 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and (2) Plaintiff's 14 Motion for an Emergency Hearing. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Case 4:20-cv-10674-MFL-APP ECF No. 73, PageID.637 Filed 02/18/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EDWARD ALBERT STENBERG,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 20-cv-10674
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
CORIZON HEALTH, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER TERMINATING WITHOUT PREJUDICE (1) PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF No. 3) AND
(2) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN
EMERGENCY HEARING (ECF No. 14)
Plaintiff Edward Albert Stenberg is a state prisoner in the custody of the
Michigan Department of Corrections. On March 12, 2020, Stenberg filed a pro se
prisoner civil-rights action in which he brings claims arising out of medical treatment
that he received while incarcerated. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Stenberg also filed
two motions: (1) a motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 3) and (2) a motion
for an emergency hearing on his request for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 14).
Since the time that Stenberg filed these motions, the Court has appointed
Stenberg pro bono counsel (see Order, ECF No. 16), and appointed counsel and
counsel for Defendants have been working cooperatively to determine whether they
can agree upon a course of medical care going forward for Stenberg. In addition,
1 

Case 4:20-cv-10674-MFL-APP ECF No. 73, PageID.638 Filed 02/18/21 Page 2 of 2

Stenberg has indicated that he is likely to file a First Amended Complaint. (See
Order, ECF No. 72.)
Given these developments it appears likely that Stenberg’s motion for a
preliminary injunction would need to be supplemented and updated by Stenberg’s
pro bono counsel.

Accordingly, the Court will TERMINATE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE both Stenberg’s motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 3) and
Stenberg’s motion for an emergency hearing on that motion (ECF No. 14). Stenberg
may re-file his preliminary injunction motion, if necessary and/or appropriate, after
this current phase of the case concludes, and after he files a First Amended
Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 18, 2021
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on February 18, 2021, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

2