Hatcher et al v. Genessee County et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying 47 Motion to proceed with trial. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)

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

Case No. 18-11986
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge

Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED WITH TRIAL [47]
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Brian Brochu’s motion to proceed
with trial. (ECF No. 47.) Defendants responded to the motion. (ECF No.
48.) Plaintiff then filed a document that he entitled, “Intraoffice
Memorandum.” (ECF No. 49.) In these filings, Plaintiff repeats many of
the same arguments he made in his two previous post-dismissal motions
(See ECF Nos. 41, 43), both of which were denied. (ECF No. 42, 45.)
Plaintiff’s motion is difficult to understand. 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.
This case was dismissed on August 14, 2020 and the case is closed.
Defendants succinctly describe the events leading up to the dismissal of
this case, as follows:
. . . Plaintiffs’ attorneys concluded at the end of discovery that
they were unable to support the factual claims made in the
complaint, i.e., that there was lead in the drinking water of
the Genesee County Jail where the Plaintiffs were
incarcerated, much less prove that any of the Plaintiffs
suffered any harm. . . [I]nstead of dismissing the case,
Plaintiffs’ attorneys wanted to withdraw from the case. The
Court suggested that Plaintiffs’ attorneys had an ethical
obligation to the Court to dismiss the case if it was not
supported by the evidence, rather than merely withdrawing.
After defense counsel agreed to toll the statute of limitations
to allow Plaintiffs to find new attorneys, and to a dismissal
without prejudice, Plaintiffs’ attorneys honored their ethical
duty and agreed to dismiss the lawsuit. . . The August 14,
2020 stipulation and order of dismissal was electronically
signed by Plaintiffs’ attorneys, as well as by defense counsel.
(ECF No. 48, PageID.337–38.) The Court entered the parties’ stipulated
order dismissing the case. (ECF No. 40.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion
is denied.
2

Plaintiff may not continue to file documents in this closed case. If
he continues to do so, the Court may order that he be enjoined from
making further filings without the Court’s permission (which may be
granted only upon a showing that the motion has merit and is not a
repetition of his previous filings). See Edwards v. Johns, 450 F. Supp. 2d
755, 756–57 (E.D. Mich. 2006). Should Plaintiff file another item in this
case, Defendants need not respond unless the Court orders a response.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 6, 2021
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 May 6, 2021.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager

3