United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Lilbert H. Gregory, Plaintiff,
Carl F. Gerds III & Diane Druzinski, Defendants.
Elizabeth A. Stafford, Mag. Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING NOS. 19-CV-11421 AND
19-CV-11680 AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING
E. LEVY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court are Plaintiff Lilbert H. Gregory's pro se civil
rights complaints filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Gregory is an inmate incarcerated at the Macomb County Jail.
complaint filed in No. 19-cv-11421, Gregory sues Michigan
Judges Carl F. Gerds III and Diane Druzinski. He asserts that
he has a pending criminal case in Macomb County for armed
robbery, and claims that on December 7, 2018, Gerds set
pretrial bond at $750, 000. Additionally, Gregory alleges
that on April 22, 2019, Drusinski denied his motion to reduce
this bond. As a result, he requests the Court “to grant
[him] a reasonable bond with 10%. [He] would also like the
Court to award [him] lost and punitive damages. [He]
respectfully ask[s] the Court to remove the Hon. Judge Diane
Druzinski from [his] criminal proceedings.” (ECF No. 1,
complaint filed in No. 19-cv-11680, Gregory sues Druzinski
for allowing his race to be listed as Black in his police
report. He also reiterates his claims about excessive bail.
Finally, Gregory seeks an order compelling the state court to
set reasonable bail and damages.
Court consolidates these two cases into one action. And after
careful review of the complaints, summarily dismisses both of
Standard of Review
was granted permission to proceed without prepayment of fees,
otherwise known as proceeding in forma pauperis.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, the Court is required to dismiss any
in forma pauperis action filed by a prisoner brought
under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such
relief. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(c). However, the Court must read a pro se complaint
generously, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972), and accept the allegations as true unless they are
clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
Rule of Civil Procedure 42 (a)(2) indicates that a district
court may consolidate actions which “involve a common
question of law or fact.” And a district court is also
permitted to consolidate separate civil rights actions prior
to screening the case. See, e.g., Johnson v. Johns,
100 Fed.Appx. 496, 496 (6th Cir. 2004). Gregory's two
civil rights cases involve a common question of law or fact.
And as such, these cases will be consolidated into one
Request for Pretrial Bond
first asks the Court to grant him a reasonable bond. In
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971), the
United States Supreme Court held that federal courts should
not enjoin pending state criminal proceedings except in a
“very unusual circumstance” where an injunction
is necessary to prevent “both great and
immediate” irreparable injury. This is the
Younger abstention doctrine. It instructs federal
courts to abstain from interfering in state cases where: (1)
there is a pending or ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2)
that implicates important state interests; and (3) where
there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings for
the defendant to ...