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.

Mallory v. Sessions

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

November 29, 2017

DONALD EUGENE MALLORY, Plaintiff,
v.
JEFF SESSIONS, Defendant.

          GEORGE CARAM STEEH DISTRICT JUDGE

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S JUNE 22, 2017 PETITION TO SEAL AND EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO EFFECT SERVICE (DE 2)

          ANTHONY P. PATTI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         A. Background

         Donald Mallory is currently incarcerated at the Michigan Department of Corrections Lakeland Correctional Facility (LCF) in Coldwater, Michigan. (DE 8.) He is serving a life sentence imposed on April 1, 1987 in Case No. 86-07734 (Wayne County). See www.michigan.gov/corrections, “Offender Search.”

         Mallory has previously filed several matters in this Court, including petitions for a writ of habeas corpus (Case Nos. 2:92-cv-71453-ADT, 5:94-cv-60284-GL) as well as other civil matters (Case Nos. 2:88-cv-72028-JAC, 2:98-cv-71472-PJD, 2:04-cv-71626-BAF-SDP, and 4:13-cv-13466-MAG-MKM).

         B. Plaintiff's “Bill in Equity”

         On June 22, 2017, while incarcerated at the MDOC's Muskegon Correctional Facility (MCF), Plaintiff filed a “Bill in Equity, ” against a single defendant - Jeff Sessions, Attorney General of the United States. Throughout Plaintiff's initiating document, he cites several “equitable maxims.” He specifically mentions the Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4341) and the Emergency Banking Relief Act (12 U.S.C. §§ 95b, et seq.). He also references the aforementioned Wayne County case number. Among other things, Plaintiff seeks return of $17, 429, 256, 000.00 - a figure apparently derived from a 2012 Income Tax Return reporting an estimate of $50, 108, 000 and a 2013 Income Tax Return in the sum of $17, 379, 148, 000. (DE 1 at 1-7; see also DEs 3-4.)

         C. Service upon Defendant Sessions

         On September 19, 2017, the Clerk's Office noted in the docket that Plaintiff's initiating document was “filed without any form of payment or application for In Forma Pauperis.” Following Plaintiff's “notice” and “application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs, ” the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. (DEs 7, 9, 10.) I further directed the Clerk's Office to issue the summons(es).

         Ordinarily, Plaintiff would only have 90 days from the date his initiating document was filed within which to serve Defendant:

If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff-must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f), 4(h)(2), or 4(j)(1). Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (“Time Limit for Service.”).

         Plaintiff filed his initiating document on June 22, 2017. Thus, he would have been required to serve Defendant no later than, approximately, Wednesday, September 20, 2017. However, given that the Court only recently addressed Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, and given that the Clerk's Office has yet to issue the summons(es), the Court will provide an extension of time within which to effect service upon Defendant Sessions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(i)(4), Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).

         D. Plaintiff's Petition to Seal

         Judge Steeh has referred this case to me to conduct all pretrial matters. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's June 22, 2017 two-page filing labeled, “Petition to Seal.” Here, too, Plaintiff quotes an “equitable maxim.” (DE 2 at 1.) Although the document is difficult to read, the Court can discern that Plaintiff's ...


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.