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)

Download PDF
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

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?