Hatcher et al v. Genessee County et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying 41 Motion for ancillary jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)

Case 5:18-cv-11986-JEL-EAS ECF No. 42, PageID.298 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Imani Hatcher et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Genesee County et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 18-11986
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Mag. Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ANCILLARY JURISDICTION [41]
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Brian Brochu’s motion for
ancillary jurisdiction. (ECF No. 41.) In his motion, Plaintiff argues that
he was exposed to lead poisoning and bacteria from Flint water while he
was incarcerated at the Genesee County Jail from July 2013 to October
2014. (Id.) He argues that Defendants in this case “tricked or
manipulated” counsel for Plaintiffs into voluntarily dismissing their
complaint. (Id. at PageID.235.)

Case 5:18-cv-11986-JEL-EAS ECF No. 42, PageID.299 Filed 11/16/20 Page 2 of 3

Plaintiff states that his request for relief is for the Court to, “once
again exercise ancillary jurisdiction to enable the court to function in a
constitutional manner allowing the court to proceed in vindicating its
authority and effectuate its decree where Plaintiff Brochu is concern[ed].”
(Id. at PageID.241.) He further states that the Court should “exercise its
ancillary jurisdiction to protect Plaintiff[’s] rights to proceed with this
civil suit.” (Id. at PageID.242.)
The Court has construed the Plaintiff’s filings liberally. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to
be liberally construed[.]” (internal quotations omitted)); and see Williams
v. Curtis, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011) (liberally construing pro se
complaint). Yet, even under this liberal standard, Plaintiff’s motion is
indecipherable. Any interpretation of the legal issue presented or relief
sought is speculative.
Even so, as best the Court can discern, it appears Plaintiff disagrees
with the stipulated order dismissing the case without prejudice and
tolling the statute of limitations, dated August 14, 2020. (ECF No. 40.) If
this is Plaintiff’s position, filing a motion such as what Plaintiff filed here
is not the avenue to obtain relief from that order. Rather, the stipulated
2

Case 5:18-cv-11986-JEL-EAS ECF No. 42, PageID.300 Filed 11/16/20 Page 3 of 3

dismissal order provides that “if any Plaintiff’s respective case was not
barred by time on the date it was originally filed, and it is refiled within
120 days of being voluntarily dismissed, . . . neither the statute of
limitations nor any similar defense shall be raised.” (ECF No. 40,
PageID.228.) One hundred and twenty days from August 14, 2020 is
December 12, 2020. Accordingly, if what Plaintiff seeks here is to refile
his case, he may do so before that date.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 16, 2020
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court s
ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on November 16, 2020.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager

3