Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Sexual Sin De Un Adbul Blue v. City of River Rouge

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

February 7, 2017

SEXUAL SIN DE UN ADBUL BLUE, Plaintiff,
v.
RIVER ROUGE, CITY OF, et al., Defendants.

         ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CORRECT DOCKET ENTRIES [13], DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIEU OF ANSWER TO STRIKE PLEADINGS AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT [15], DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY [28], DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FOR COSTS INCURRED [29], GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT [40], GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE 9-9-2016 SUPPLEMENT [41], AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE [45]

          MONA K. MAJZOUB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Sexual Sin De Un Adbul Blue filed this pro se civil rights action against Defendants City of River Rouge, River Rouge Police Department, Officer Otis, Officer J. Copeland, Officer R.M. Miller, Sergeant Mitchell, and John Doe pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 12, 2016, asserting claims of false and malicious arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, among others, with regard to his arrest and prosecution for trespassing. (Docket no. 1.) This matter comes before the court on seven motions: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Correct Docket Entries (docket no. 13); (2) Defendants' Motion in Lieu of Answer to Strike Pleadings and Motion for More Definite Statement (docket no. 15); (3) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (docket no. 28); (4) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production and for Costs Incurred (docket no. 29); (5) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment per the August 25, 2016 Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery (docket no. 40); (6) Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the 9-9-2016 Supplement of the Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Interlineation for Purposes of Clarification (docket no. 41); and (7) Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Officer Otis Alternatively Plaintiff's Request to Have Evidence Considered that Contradicts Officer Otis's Unsworn Declaration (docket no. 45).[1] This action has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings. (Docket no. 7.) The Court has reviewed the pleadings and dispenses with oral argument pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). The Court is now ready to rule pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

         I. Plaintiff's Motion to Correct Docket Entries [13]

         Plaintiff filed a Motion to Correct Docket Entries on March 2, 2016 (docket no. 13), to which Defendants have not responded. In this Motion, Plaintiff moves the Court to correct the docket in this matter to reflect that he served a Notice of Change of Address upon Defendants on February 24, 2016. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff explains that he filed a Proof of Service of the Notice with the Court on February 24, 2016, and that the Clerk of Court made entries on the docket numbering 2 and 3 respectively based on the Proof of Service, but the Clerk failed to make any entry on the docket regarding service of the Notice of Change of Address upon Defendants. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff is seemingly mistaken in this regard, as docket entries number 2 and 3 in this matter are Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees and Costs (docket no. 2) and Plaintiff's Request for Service by U.S. Marshal (docket no. 3). Neither of these documents relates to a Proof of Service of Plaintiff's Notice of Change of Address upon Defendants. In fact, there is no record that Plaintiff filed the subject Proof of Service with the court. Even if he had, such a filing would be irrelevant and unnecessary, as (1) the Notice of Change of Address purportedly served upon Defendants by Plaintiff was not filed with the court and is therefore not a part of the record in this matter; and (2) the “old address” and “new address” listed in the Notice of Change of Address, which Plaintiff attached as an exhibit to his Motion, are identical to each other and to Plaintiff's address of record as provided in the Complaint (see Id. at 2-4 and docket no. 1). Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's Motion to Correct Docket Entries (docket no. 13).

         II. Defendants' Motion in Lieu of Answer to Strike Pleadings and Motion for More Definite Statement [15]

         On March 9, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion in Lieu of Answer to Strike Pleadings and Motion for More Definite Statement, in which Defendants argue that (1) portions of Plaintiff's Complaint should be stricken pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) for “containing scandalous diatribe which is offensive and immaterial to this action;” and (2) Plaintiff should be ordered to provide a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) because the Complaint does not give Defendants adequate notice of Plaintiff's claims, and Defendants are therefore unable to prepare a coherent answer. (Docket no. 15.) After receiving an extension of time from the Court, Plaintiff responded to Defendants' Motion and filed a Proposed First Amended Complaint by the April 11, 2016 deadline. (Docket nos. 19 and 20.) Plaintiff explains in his Response that he made an effort to make more specific allegations against specific defendants in the Proposed First Amended Complaint. (Docket no. 20.) Defendants replied to Plaintiff's Response and asserted that Plaintiff's Proposed First Amended Complaint fails to address all of the deficiencies of the original Complaint. (Docket no. 21.) Nevertheless, on June 6, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss based on Plaintiff's Proposed First Amended Complaint. (Docket no. 23.) Accordingly, the Court will construe Plaintiff's Proposed First Amended Complaint (docket no. 19) as Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and will DENY Defendants' Motion in Lieu of Answer to Strike Pleadings and Motion for More Definite Statement (docket no. 15) as moot.

         III. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery [28] and Motion to Compel Production and for Costs Incurred [29]

         Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery (docket no. 28) and a Motion to Compel Production and for Costs Incurred (docket no. 29) on July 14, 2016 and July 18, 2016, respectively. Defendants responded to both motions. (Docket nos. 33 and 34.) The subject of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery is a Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action, which Plaintiff served upon the “Court Administrator/Custodian of Records for 25th District Court.” (Docket no. 28.) In the Motion, Plaintiff takes issue with the copy fees imposed by “the Defendant, 25th District Court Court [sic] Administrator” for the documents requested, claiming that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45 do not permit a responding party to charge a requesting party for the production of discovery. (Id. at 1-3, 7-8.)

         In Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production and for Costs Incurred, Plaintiff seeks a court order compelling Defendant River Rouge Police Department to respond to a subpoena served upon the Custodian of Records for the City of River Rouge Police Department so that Plaintiff may properly respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket no. 29.) In this regard, Plaintiff asserts that he contacted the city clerk regarding the subpoena, who informed him that the subpoena was given to defense counsel in this matter and that she would respond to the subpoena on behalf of the City of River Rouge. (Id. at 5.)

         Plaintiff's discovery motions violate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this District in several respects. First, Plaintiff does not certify in the motions that he conferred or attempted to confer with Defendants, through defense counsel, regarding the discovery sought before filing the motions, which is a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(a). Also, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Compel Discovery against “the Defendant, 25th District Court Court [sic] Administrator” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34; however, neither the 25th District Court nor its Court Administrator is a named defendant and neither is therefore subject to Rule 34 in this matter. Additionally, Plaintiff served a subpoena directly upon Defendant City of River Rouge Police Department, which is a circumvention of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to serve a notice and copy of the subpoenas on Defendants prior to service on the persons to whom they were directed in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(4). For these reasons, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (docket no. 28) and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production and for Costs Incurred (docket no. 29).

         Notably, the denial of these motions does not mean that Plaintiff was without discovery in responding to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss. On August 25, 2016, the Court denied Defendants' August 8, 2016 Motion to Stay Discovery (docket no. 37) and directed Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests. (Docket no. 39.) The Court also advised Plaintiff that upon receiving Defendants' discovery responses, he may seek leave of court to supplement his Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has since filed such a motion, which the Court will address forthwith.

         IV. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment per the August 25, 2016 Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery [40]

         In the instant Motion, Plaintiff advises that he received Defendants' discovery responses and, in light of those responses, he seeks leave to supplement his Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss. (Docket no. 40.) Defendants filed a substantive response to Plaintiff's proposed supplement, but they do not oppose the supplement procedurally. (Docket no. 42.) Accordingly, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement his Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss (docket no. 40) and will consider ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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