MARSHALL v. CITY OF DETROIT

Case No. 00-CV-74576.

DARRELL L. MARSHALL, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DETROIT, and WAYNE COUNTY, Defendants.

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


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Darrell L. Marshall, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

County of Wayne, Defendant, represented by James M. Surowiec , Wayne County Corporation Counsel & Aaron C. Thomas , Macomb County Corporation Counsel.


ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT [DOC. 93] AND DENYING MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT [DOC. 91]

GEORGE CARAM STEEH, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Darrell Marshall's motion to vacate judgment and to supplement the same motion to vacate judgment. Plaintiff's motion to vacate judgment seeks to vacate the court's order dated June 9, 2016 which denied plaintiff's motion to stay judgment. In turn, plaintiff's motion to stay judgment sought to have the court vacate its long-standing restraining order dated November 21, 2000, which enjoined plaintiff from filing any new lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan without first obtaining leave of this court. The purpose of the court's restraining order was to prevent plaintiff from abusing the judicial process by filing further lawsuits relating to the same underlying incident.

The November 21, 2000 order enjoining plaintiff from filing further lawsuits without leave of court set forth a specific procedure to be followed by plaintiff if he desired to file a new action in this court. One of the steps plaintiff has been directed to take in order to receive leave to file a new action, is to show that the claim he wishes to present is a new issue which has not previously been raised in a legal action. Plaintiff did not abide by the terms of the November 21, 2000 order in June of 2016, and he has not abided by those terms since the court denied his request. Simply put, plaintiff does not have a case currently pending before the court, which was the basis of the court's holding in denying plaintiff's motion to stay.

Plaintiff has failed to show any basis on which the court's order denying motion for stay of judgment should be vacated. Now, therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to supplement is GRANTED.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to vacate judgment is DENIED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases