Opinion
4:24-cv-11105
07-11-2024
SEAN MICHAEL RYAN (#787263), Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al., Defendants.
Shalina D. Kumar, District Judge
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR THE COURT TO ORDER THE MDOC TO MAKE COPIES OF THE COMPLAINT'S EXHIBITS BUT GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR A COPY OF THE DOCKET SHEET FOR THIS CASE (ECF NO. 3)
ANTHONY P. PATTI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Sean Michael Ryan is currently in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at Thumb Correctional Facility (JCF). (ECF No. 11.) In April 2024, while he was located at the MDOC's G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility (JCF), Ryan initiated the instant lawsuit against a multitude of Defendants, most of whom are described as located at JCF. (ECF No. 1, PageID.2-6.) The court has granted Plaintiff's application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs and directed service by the U.S. Marshal (ECF Nos. 2, 6, 7), the USMS attempted service by mail upon multiple Defendants (ECF No. 9), and the Court awaits Defendants' appearances.
Meanwhile, Judge Kumar has referred this case to me for pretrial matters. (ECF No. 10.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's April 25, 2024 request for the Court to order the MDOC to make copies of the exhibits referred to in Plaintiff's initial complaint, namely Exhibits A-I. (ECF No. 3.) Inter alia, Plaintiff contends that Hautu Elum “would only provide . . . Plaintiff one copy . . . [,]” and that Elum “[r]effused to provide Plaintiff the 2 copies required for the fling of this complaint.” (Id., PageID.174.) Alleging Elum “has intentionally tried to sabotage this litigation . . . [,]” Plaintiff “requests the court to issue a deficiency order directing the Court to make the missing copies of the exhibits [similar] to that which the court ordered” in Christian v. Ducatt, No. 2:13-CV-13931, 2015 WL 1322297 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 24, 2015). (Id., PageID.174.)
However, in a filing signed May 28, 2024, post-marked May 29, 2024, and filed June 4, 2024, Plaintiff has provided the Court with Exhibits A-I and requests that the Court strike his request for a deficiency order from the record as he “was able to send the exhibits home and [his] family made the necessary copies and mailed it back.” (ECF No. 8.) Upon consideration, Plaintiff's request (ECF No. 3) is DENIED AS MOOT to the extent it sought a deficiency order but GRANTED to the extent it seeks a copy of the docket sheet for this case.
The attention of the parties is drawn to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), which provides a period of fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).