Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ALEXANDER v. CALZETTA, 2:16-cv-13293. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20171006r03 Visitors: 1
Filed: Sep. 29, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 29, 2017
Summary: ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY AS A MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS MOTION FOR A TRO AND A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, GRANTING THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW (DE 56) and DEEMING WITHDRAWN THE UNDERLYING MOTION (DE 43) ANTHONY P. PATTI , Magistrate Judge . On September 8, 2016, while incarcerated at Macomb Correctional Facility (MRF), D'Andre Alexander (#731077) filed the instant lawsuit against 18 defendants. The facts underlying Plaintiff's complaint span the period from February 2, 2015, when P
More

ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY AS A MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS MOTION FOR A TRO AND A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, GRANTING THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW (DE 56) and DEEMING WITHDRAWN THE UNDERLYING MOTION (DE 43)

On September 8, 2016, while incarcerated at Macomb Correctional Facility (MRF), D'Andre Alexander (#731077) filed the instant lawsuit against 18 defendants. The facts underlying Plaintiff's complaint span the period from February 2, 2015, when Plaintiff was incarcerated at MBP, through February 2016, when Plaintiff was incarcerated at WCC. (DE 1 at 2 ¶ 4, DE 1 at 3-7 ¶¶ 13-48.) Sixteen Defendants have appeared, and service as to the remaining two defendants — Haas and Rosen — is ongoing.

This case has been referred to me for all pretrial matters. Among the multiple motions pending in this case are: (1) Plaintiff's June 26, 2017 motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction (DE 43), filed while Plaintiff was incarcerated at MRF and seeking entry of an order requiring the MDOC to place him in protective custody, "long term pursuant to [MDOC] [Police Directive] 05.01.140 . . .[;]" and (2) Plaintiff's July 12, 2017 motion to stay the motion for TRO and preliminary injunction (DE 56), filed while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Chippewa Correctional Facility (URF) and requesting that the Court stay his motion for TRO and preliminary injunction, pending his transfer. Significantly, the prayer for relief in Plaintiff's motion to stay does not mention protective custody; instead, it is focused on transfer. (DE 56 at 2.)

The Court appreciates Plaintiff's desire "to not un[n]ecessarily utilize" the Court's "authority and resources[.]" (DE 56 at 1.) Upon consideration, Plaintiff's motion to stay (DE 56) is CONSTRUED as a motion to withdraw his motion for TRO and preliminary injunction (DE 43). The motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's underlying motion is DEEMED WITHDRAWN. In so doing, the Court notes that the MDOC's Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) lists Alexander's current location as the Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility (MTU) in Ionia, Michigan. See www.michigan.gov/corrections, "Offender Search." MTU differs from the return address on Plaintiff's motion to stay — URF. As such, it appears that Plaintiff achieved the transfer he sought. Moreover, given the way he has phrased this motion to stay — namely, if transferred he would move to strike his motion for TRO/preliminary injunction and if not transferred he would request a hearing — his motion for TRO/preliminary injunction would be rendered moot by his transfer. Plaintiff may renew his request if this is not the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer