Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gresham v. Heyns

United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division

March 23, 2015

MICHAEL GRESHAM, Plaintiff,
v.
DAN HEYNS, et. al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [#4, #5], DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL [#6], GRANTING MOTION TO RELATE CASE [#7] AND CONSOLIDATING CASES

Gershwin A. Drain, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff initiated a suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 that was docketed as Case No. 13-10189. On August 27, 2014, this Court entered an order which in part denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint without prejudice. On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint that was docketed as a new case as Case No. 14-13806. The complaint makes reference to the previous case and the Court’s order. The Court will construe Plaintiff’s latest complaint as an amended complaint in Case No. 13-10189.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides as follows:

(a) Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).

It is within the discretion of the district court to determine whether cases involving the same factual and legal questions should be consolidated. Stemler v. Burke, 344 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 1965). In the instant case, Plaintiff intended to pursue a single action against the defendants, the Court will therefore consolidate the two cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Temporary Restraining Order [#4 and #5] are DENIED. Plaintiff has not demonstrated he is entitled to injunctive relief. See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 88 (2008) (holding that injunctive relief seeks to address the possibility of irreparable harm where an inadequacy of legal relief exists).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel [#6] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Relate Case, construed as a Motion to Consolidate, [#7] is GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that case numbers 13-10189 and 14-13806 are hereby CONSOLIDATED. The Clerk of the Court shall docket a copy of this order in both cases.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall docket Plaintiff’s Complaint filed in case 14-13806 in case 13-10189 as an Amended Complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that case 14-13806 is DISMISSED. All future documents shall be filed under case 13-10189.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.