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.

Alexander v. Calzetta

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

January 22, 2018

D'ANDRE ALEXANDER # 731077, Plaintiff
v.
NICHOLAS GALZETTA, FRED GOVERN, ERICA HUSS, DARRIN VIITALA, MANDI SALMI, KENNETH NIEMISTO, KRISTINE GIESEN, TERRY MEDEN, CHAD LaCOUNT, HANNA SAAD, DR. ROSEN, C/O WATKINS, C/O LEWIS, C/O LEE, C/O SLAUGHTER, C/O HOUSTON, DAPHNE M. JOHNSON and RICHARD IDEMUDIA Defendants.

          Mark A. Goldsmith District Judge

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND ORDERING ENFORCEMENT OF MDOC PD 05.03.116 (DE 81)

          Anthony P. Patti United States Magistrate Judge

         A. Background and Discussion

         D'Andre Alexander (#731077) is currently incarcerated at the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Gus Harrison Correctional Facility (ARF) in Adrian, Michigan. See www.michigan.gov/corrections, “Offender Search.” On September 8, 2016, while incarcerated at Macomb Correctional Facility (MRF), Alexander filed the instant lawsuit against 18 defendants, who are described as follows:

. nine (9) Defendants are associated with the MDOC's Marquette Branch Prison (MBP) (Calzetta, Govern, Giesen, Viitala, LaCount, Niemisto, Huss, Salmi and Meden),
. eight (8) Defendants are associated with the MDOC's Woodland Center Correctional Facility (WCC) (Saad, Rosen, Watkins, Lewis, Lee, Slaughter, Houston and Idemudia), and
. one (1) Defendant is associated with the MDOC's Office of Legal Affairs (Johnson).

(DE 1.) On September 16, 2016, the Court recognized Plaintiff's indigency by granting his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. (DE 4.) The facts underlying Plaintiffs 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.) This case has been referred to me for all pretrial matters. (DE 8.)

         The State Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on June 27, 2017 (DE 46)[1] and Defendant Terry Meden filed his motion for summary judgment on July 11, 2017. (DE 53, 54.) The Court ordered responses to the two motions for summary judgment by August 18 and August 17, 2017, respectively. (DEs 48, 57.) Plaintiff did not file a response to either motion, but instead filed various motions to stay or for an enlargement of time to respond. (See DEs 51, 58, 63, 64.) On January 3, 2018, the Court entered an order, in part denying the motions to stay and granting the motion for an extension of time to file a response/reply, and ordering Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants' motions for summary judgment by January 22, 2018, and that Defendants may file reply briefs on or before February 1, 2018. (DE 76.)

         On January 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for enlargement of time to file his response to the summary judgment motions (DE 80) and a motion for order to show cause (DE 81), in which he complains that an employee of the law library (Sloamski) is refusing to make copies of exhibits Plaintiff wants to attach to his response brief. On January 22, 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiff's motion for extension, and ordered that Plaintiff's response is now due by January 29, 2018, and that he may file supplemental exhibits, if necessary, after his response brief has been filed, but that the Court will not consider any material received after the reply brief deadline. (Text-only Order, 1/22/2018.) Plaintiff's motion to show cause requests an order that Sloamski, the law library employee, “make [] copies of all of Plaintiff's exhibits so he can file his pleadings, ” and “[t]hat Sloamski show cause why there shouldn't be a charge of .50¢ per page of Plaintiff's exhibits if he has to file all of his original copies of his exhibits with the court.” (DE 81 at 2.)

         The Court takes judicial notice of the Michigan Department of Corrections Policy Directive 05.03.116, Prisoners' Access to the Courts, which, in pertinent part, reads as follows:

         LEGAL PHOTOCOPYING SERVICES

M. Prisoners shall be provided photocopying services to obtain copies of items needed for legal research. Prisoners also shall be provided photocopying services to obtain copies of documents in their possession, or available to them in the law library, which are necessary for the prisoner to file with a court or serve on a party to a lawsuit. Prisoners shall use the Legal Photocopy Disbursement Authorization form (CSJ-602) to request photocopying; the forms shall be available to prisoners in the housing unit and institutional law libraries. A fee of 10 cents shall be charged for each page copied.
N. Prisoners who lack sufficient funds to pay for copies of documents in their possession, or available to them in the law library, which are necessary for the prisoner to file with the court or serve on a party to a lawsuit shall be loaned funds to pay for the copying. Funds shall not be loaned, however, for copying a document which can otherwise be reproduced by the prisoner, except if the document is notarized or was created for the prisoner ...

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.