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

April 4, 2018

D'ANDRE ALEXANDER # 731077, Plaintiff
v.
NICHOLAS CALZETTA, 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 ENFORCEMENT OF COURT ORDER (DE 91) AND STRIKING LETTER AS IMPROVIDENTLY FILED (DE 99)

          Anthony P. Patti UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE .

         A. Background

         Plaintiff 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.)

         B. Order to Enforce PD 05.03.116 (M-O) (DE 82)

         On January 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for order to show cause, in which he complained that an employee of the law library (Sloamski) was refusing to make copies of exhibits Plaintiff wanted to attach to his response brief to Defendants' then-pending motions for summary judgment. (DE 81)[1] On January 22, 2018, the Court entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for order to show cause and ordering enforcement of MDOC Policy Directive (PD) 05.03.116 (MO), including the provisions of photocopies at a fee of 10 cents per page copied, and the loan of necessary funds in connection therewith which are needed to comply with the Order. (DE 82.)

         C. Plaintiff's motion for enforcement of order (DE 91) and letter to the Court (DE 99)

         On February 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for enforcement of court order and notice to prohibit retaliation, in which he claims that “staff member Slomski” is “still refusing to make copies, follow policy, etc.” (DE 91.) Plaintiff alleges that he has filed “multiple grievances against Slomski” and that in response to those grievances, “Slomski has since wrote Plaintiff a fabricated misconduct, which has adversely affected him.” (Id.) Plaintiff seeks an order again “directing Slomski and Trowbridge (librarians) to abide by PD 05.03.116 and refrain from any form of further retaliation against Plaintiff.” (Id.) Plaintiff further states that “[a] subsequent lawsuit will be filed for the retaliation.” (Id.)

         On March 16, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a “letter” directed to me, further complaining that Librarians Trowbridge and Slomski are expressly refusing to follow the Court's January 22, 2018 order, and that they are asserting that they will only make copies if Plaintiff also leaves copies of his pleadings (which are not requested to be copied) so that they can read them. (DE 99.) Plaintiff asserts that he is only required to “present” the pleading to MDOC personnel to show the necessity for the copies being requested, and not that the MDOC employees be permitted to read the pleadings. (Id.)

         D. ...


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.