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.

White v. Jindal

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

June 6, 2017

MARK WHITE Plaintiff,
v.
ROSILYN JINDAL, et al., Defendants.

         OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 1) MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL [170], 2) MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER RESPONSE & REQUEST FOR ADMONISHMENT/SANCTIONS [173], 3) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES/DISCOVERY AND FOR CONTEMPT FINES FEES AND COSTS [183], 4) MOTION TO PROVIDE COPIES OF DOCKET 160 AT STATE EXPENSE [186], 5) MOTION TO COMPEL/ORDER DISCOVERY [188]; AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DEPOSE PRISONER WITNESSES [181]

          MONA K. MAJZOUB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. Background

         Plaintiff Mark White, currently a prisoner at the Lakeland Correctional Facility in Coldwater, Michigan, filed this pro se civil rights case on December 13, 2013. (Docket no. 1.) He originally alleged claims against a number of defendants related to his healthcare while imprisoned at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan, but those claims have been dismissed based on the applicable statute of limitations and for improper joinder. (Docket no. 73 at 6-8.) His remaining claims relate to his refusal to “snitch” on fellow inmates and the alleged failure of Gus Harrison prison officials to properly protect him from gang members as well as from other MDOC officials, among other allegations. (Docket no. 128 at 8-21 (Second Amended Complaint).) Seeking damages and injunctive relief, he sues Defendant Paul Klee, the Warden at the Gus Harrison Facility; Defendant Lee McRoberts, the Deputy Warden; and Defendant C. Condon, a Resident Unit Manager (“Defendants”), all in their official and individual capacities. (Id. at 8.)

         Plaintiff is subject to the three strikes rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)[1] (see White v. Heyns, No. 13-cv-12104, docket no. 4, E.D. Mich. May 24, 2013); however, he has been allowed to proceed without prepayment of fees in this case because he was able to demonstrate that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also docket no. 73 at 7. On April 22, 2014, Plaintiff obtained a Temporary Injunction requiring Defendants to “transfer plaintiff to an MDOC facility that does not have a ‘high concentration' of members of the Gangster's Disciples prison gang.” (Docket no. 44 at 3.) On June 24, 2014, however, the Temporary Injunction was vacated following a determination that Plaintiff was required to seek protection through Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) administrative procedures before resorting to court-ordered relief. (Docket no. 73 at 5-6.)

         Since that time, Plaintiff has been transferred out of the Gus Harrison Facility, and is currently housed in the Lakeland Facility. He has continued his efforts to prosecute this case, however, by filing numerous “motions, ” many of which are confusing, repetitive, and procedurally improper. Since the dissolution of the Temporary Injunction, the Court has issued a number of orders to move the case along, most notably by appointing counsel for Plaintiff, on September 15, 2015. (Docket no. 121.) On April 1, 2016, however, the Court granted Plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw from the case, following a “fundamental breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, ” which counsel alleged was “caused by [Plaintiff's] belligerent insistence upon taking action [counsel] believes to be legally unjustified.” (Docket no. 133 at 6- 7.)

         The factual and procedural history of this case has been recounted in greater detail in other orders and reports (see, e.g., docket nos. 97, 133, 166), and will only be repeated or expanded to the extent necessary to explain the Court's decisions regarding the motions addressed herein, specifically:

• Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Counsel (docket no. 170);
• Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Improper Response & Request for Admonishment/Sanctions (docket no. 173);
• Defendants' Motion for Leave to Depose Prisoner Witnesses (docket no. 181);
• Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Response to Interrogatories/Discovery and for Contempt, Fines, Fees and Costs (docket no. 183);
• Plaintiffs Motion to Provide Copies of Docket 160 at State Expense (docket no. 186); and
• Plaintiff s Motion to Compel/Order Discovery (docket no. 188).[2]

         All pretrial matters have been referred to the undersigned for consideration. (Docket no. 12.) The undersigned dispenses with oral argument pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f).

         II. Analysis

         a. Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Counsel [170]

         Plaintiff filed his “Motion for Appointment of Counsel due to Inability to Proceed Pro Se under Current Placement; Unavailable Photocopy Process; Lack of Records; Daily Harassment; Imminent Danger” in December 2016. (Docket no. 170.) Plaintiff includes a number of allegations and requests for relief unrelated to his primary request for appointment of counsel; for example, Plaintiff asks the Court to “order the copy and mailing of all 65 exhibits to Docket # 162 at state expense; and order Defendants['] counsel to justify placement in violation of policy, and to show cause why Plaintiff cannot be transferred to a gang free level 2 at Lapeer, Lakeland or R.A. Handlon.” (Docket no. 170 at 7.) Plaintiff has previously been warned that he must be “specific and concise in any motion he files, with allegations only related to the relief he seeks through the motion. Plaintiff also ...


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.