Opinion
Case No. 01-72113
September 20, 2001
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs have now filed a motion seeking a vacation of any order of summary judgment, to which defendant parties have responded.
Partly because they are laypersons, plaintiffs have no understanding of the procedural law that they must follow in bringing suit. Their difficulty is compounded because they refuse to retain legal counsel to assist them; or, it may be, as they have informed me, that the counsel they did contact have indicated to them that they have no case.
Under our law, defendants have a right to know what the bases of the claims made by the plaintiffs are. Plaintiffs either are unwilling or unable to understand that. If they have in some way been injured by any or all of the defendants, they must state specifically and succinctly what that injury is. They must state with specificity what legal right or rights they have been violated. Defendants must be informed fully as to these matters; and, plaintiffs' original Complaint, which is unintelligible and which is repeated at great length in their motion for reconsideration, does nothing to advise defendants of the legal basis for their suit. Plaintiffs simply say that the motion to vacate should he granted because of fraud, inadvertence, and excusable neglect; and that the Court's Judgment is void as a matter of law.
I do not wish in this Opinion to characterize the ineptness of plaintiffs' Complaint. It may be, due to a complete ignorance of what the law requires in the statement of a lawsuit, that plaintiffs simply refuse to obtain assistance.
Apparently plaintiffs have the mistaken idea that, since their claims are based on a land patent, they have certain rights, but they do not articulate what these rights are. At certain points, their statements asked that I enter an order stating that a "parcel of land lying between Bayview Ave the waters edge, White Star Shipping Line J.T. Gibson Private Claim is for the use of the public." They say that a Clay Township special assessment is null and void; that they want an order removing this special water assessment apparently presently levied against their property.
Since I am unable to deal with all of the uncertainty that surrounds these perceived claims, I have no alternative but to deny plaintiffs' motion seeking to vacate my order of summary judgment.
If, as plaintiffs have stated, they do not wish to seek legal assistance, the only alternative for them is to appeal my orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati. If they present themselves to the Clerk's Office of this Court, on the Fifth Floor of the Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, during business hours, they can ask for help in filing an appeal.
For these reasons, and without further comment as to the difficulties that I have in understanding what they seek, their motion to have me vacate my prior order of summary judgment be, and it is hereby, DENIED. lT IS SO ORDERED.