Hatcher et al v. Genessee County et al

Filing 45

ORDER denying 43 Motion to Order Counsel's Representation and for Settlement. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)

Case 5:18-cv-11986-JEL-EAS ECF No. 45, PageID.319 Filed 12/15/20 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
TO ORDER COUNSEL’S REPRESENTATION AND FOR
SETTLEMENT [43]
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Brian Brochu’s motion to order
counsel’s continuing representation of Plaintiff and to settle the case.
(ECF No. 43.) Defendants responded to the motion on December 11, 2020.
(ECF No. 44.) In his motion, Plaintiff repeats some of the same
arguments he made in his previous motion for ancillary jurisdiction (ECF
No. 41), which the Court denied. (ECF No. 42.) He argues that he believes
he came into contact with infected blood, which transmitted Hepatitis A,
by food and water contaminated from the Flint River. (ECF No. 43,

Case 5:18-cv-11986-JEL-EAS ECF No. 45, PageID.320 Filed 12/15/20 Page 2 of 3

PageID. 303.) He further argues that he should receive a settlement for
his case “as requested in civil brochure of $45,000.” (Id., at PageID.302.)
And finally, although he maintains that his former counsel continued a
“pattern of deception,” that counsel should be ordered to represent him.
(Id. at PageID.302–305.)
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, the Court cannot
understand Plaintiff’s motion. Further, the relief Plaintiff seems to want
– representation by a lawyer and a settlement in a case that has been
dismissed – is not within the Court’s authority to order.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 15, 2020
Ann Arbor, Michigan

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

2

Case 5:18-cv-11986-JEL-EAS ECF No. 45, PageID.321 Filed 12/15/20 Page 3 of 3

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 December 15, 2020.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager

3