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.

Goldman v. McRoberts

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

April 5, 2019

LANCE ADAM GOLDMAN, Plaintiff
v.
LEE MCROBERTS, MICHAEL DOSS, ERICK VANDENBURG, CHRISTOPHER WHITFORD, SCOTT MCALLISTER, JEROLD SCHNEIDER, VERA CONERLY, JAMIE BROCKWELL, and RODNEY RICHARDSON, Defendants.

          District Judge Gershwin A. Drain

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING SEVERAL OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS (DES 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 84, 88, 89, 91, 95) AND PLACING RESTRICTIONS ON PLAINTIFF'S FUTURE FILINGS

          ANTHONY P. PATTI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         I. OPINION

         Plaintiff is currently in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility (JCF), which is located in Jackson County and within the Eastern District of Michigan.[1] However, as recently as March 22, 2019, the post-marked date of his most recent filing in this lawsuit, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the MDOC's Chippewa Correctional Facility (URF), which is located in Chippewa County in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, all of which is within the Western District of Michigan. (See DE 95 at 9.)

         A. Plaintiff is a party to multiple other lawsuits.

         Plaintiff is no stranger to Michigan's federal courts. In addition to the instant case, he has filed other lawsuits in the Eastern District of Michigan. See, e.g., Goldman v. Michigan, State of et al (No. 2:18-cv-11666-GCS-PTM) (4 Defendants, summarily dismissed on July 17, 2018); Goldman v. Horton (No. 2:19-cv-10160-BAF-DRG) (petition for writ of habeas corpus, transferred to the W.D. Mich. on Feb. 5, 2019); Goldman v. Elum et al (No. 2:19-cv-10390-GAD-SDD) (22 Defendants, several pending matters including an application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs).[2]

         Plaintiff is / was also a party to several cases in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.[3] Among these cases, it is worth noting Judge Quist's January 7, 2019 order, which states, in part: “Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because he has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated, brought an action in federal court that was dismissed on the ground that it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief might be granted.” Goldman #542675 v. Bridenstein, No. 2:2018cv00143 (W.D. Mich.) (DE 11) (emphasis added).

         B. The Instant Lawsuit involves Parnall Correctional Facility (SMT) Defendants.

         Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on December 19, 2017 against 17 Defendants. (DE 1 at 2-5.) On March 26, 2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against eight of the named Defendants. (DE 9.) Each of the remaining nine Defendants is alleged to be employed at SMT, which is located in Jackson County and in a portion of Michigan's Lower Peninsula that is within the Eastern District of Michigan. (DE 1 at 2-5.)[4] Plaintiff alleges he was transferred to SMT on June 26, 2017. (DE 1 ¶ 4.) His claims regarding his conditions of confinement there appear to begin with Defendant Vandenburg's alleged July 2017 finding that Plaintiff was guilty of a Class II misconduct issued at Cooper Street Correctional Facility (JCS) on the date of Plaintiff s transfer to SMT. (See DE 1 at 6-18, 28-87.)

         C. Ten (10) Motions are Pending in this Case.

         Judge Drain has referred the instant case to me for all pretrial proceedings. (DE 53.) Plaintiff is a high-volume filer, and the Undersigned has already issued a multitude of orders, as well as one report and recommendation, to keep up with Plaintiffs myriad requests. See, e.g., DEs 11, 43, 44, 47, 49, 58, 59, 65, 69. Moreover, on two separate occasions, I have stricken Plaintiffs letters. (See DEs 56, 63.)

         1. Motions as to which the Court has ordered a response

         At the present moment, there are 10 pending matters, among which are:

. Plaintiffs February 11, 2019 motion for injunctive order (DE 70)
. Plaintiffs February 15, 2019 supplemental emergency report and motion for injunctive/protective order (DE 71)
. Plaintiffs February 15, 2019 motion to expedite attached emergency report (DE 72)
. Plaintiffs February 19, 2019 verified motion to supplement supplemental motion for injunctive/declaratory relief (DE 73)
. Plaintiffs February 21, 2019 verified motion to supplement supplemental motion for injunctive/protective order (DE 74)

         Plaintiff has also filed several items which are not titled as motions, such as his February 22, 2019 “memorandum in support of motion for injunctive/protective order” (DE 75), a February 25, 2019 “supplemental report” (DE 78), a February 25, 2019 “supplemental report (memo)” (DE 79), and a March 8, 2019 “(verified) emergency PREA [Prison Rape Elimination Act] report in support of motion for injunctive relief (DE 83).[5]

         At the Court's direction, the MDOC filed a combined response to the five, above-described ...


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.