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.

Anderson v. Furst

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

May 31, 2019

JERRY ANDERSON, Plaintiff
v.
COLTER FURST, MICHAEL THOMAS, and NATHAN ELLIS Defendants.

          Victoria A. Roberts, District Judge.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT (DE 99) AND STRIKING MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS (Des 102, 103)

          Anthony P. Patti, United States Magistrate Judge.

         I. Procedural History

         A. Background

         Plaintiff Jerry Anderson, a state prisoner who is proceeding in forma pauperis, brings this prisoner civil rights lawsuit against three defendants, Colter Furst, Michael Thomas and Nathan Ellis, all Michigan State Police Troopers, alleging they violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force during his arrest on September 4, 2015. (DE 1.) He seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, in addition to compensatory and punitive damages. (Id.)

         B. Plaintiff's Request for Contempt of Court (DE 100)

         On March 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for contempt of court, asking for an order of contempt against four non-parties he complains failed to comply with subpoenas. (DE 100.) Plaintiff notes that on January 14, 2019, this Court directed the United States Marshals Service (USMS) to serve the four subpoenas at ¶ 80, Pg IDs 403-418, on the persons/entities at the addresses listed on each of the subpoenas. (DE 83 at 4.) Plaintiff asserts that the nonparties have failed to comply with the subpoenas and have not given any reason for failure to do so, and accordingly requests that the Court enter an order for contempt against the four nonparties: (1) Michael P. Manley; (2) Robert Pickell (Genesee County Sheriff) and/or assistants; (3) David S. Leyton (Genesee County Prosecutor) and/or assistants; and (4) Genesee County Jail Mental Health/Health Care Service Provider. (DE 100.)

         Nonparty Michael P. Manley, Plaintiff's former attorney in his state court criminal case, filed a response to Plaintiff's request on March 14, 2019. (DE 98.) He states that he had no knowledge of the instant matter or the subpoena allegedly directed to him until he received a copy of Plaintiff's request for contempt of court. (Id. ¶ 4.) Manley asserts that he nevertheless “performed a diligent search of his records on March 12, 2019, and determined that he does not have the information requested by Plaintiff, Jerry Anderson” in the subpoena. (Id. ¶ 5.)

         On March 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a reply, contending that Manley's response “impl[ies] that the U.S. Marshals have neglected their duty to comply with this Courts [sic] 1/14/19 order” or “that 3rd party Manley is not being truthful in his response pleading.” (DE 101.) Plaintiff asserts that Manley had a duty to preserve the documents sought in the subpoena and should be “compelled to produce the requested documents by any means necessary.” (Id.)

         C. Miscellaneous Documents (DEs 102, 103)

         On April 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff's reply to defendants [sic] answer to question 3 of DE 60 and reply to defendants['] supplemental response to plaintiff[']s request to produce number 4[, ]” in which he generally complains about the adequacy of Defendants' supplemental discovery responses as ordered by the Court on February 27, 2019. (DE 102.)

         On May 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court requesting that the Court rule on his then-pending motions to compel. (DE 103.) The Court has since issued an Order addressing those, and other, motions. (DE 105.)

         II. Standard

         Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs subpoenas and allows a party to command a nonparty to produce documents or tangible things. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(1). Rule 45(g) governs contempt and provides that the court “may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without ...


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.