Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

1:15-cv-12899-TLL-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 11/12/15 Pg 1 of 4

Pg ID 81

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
THEODORE VISNER and KATHY SMITH,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 15-cv-12899


Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

BANK OF AMERICA, et al.,


Defendants.
_______________________________________/
ORDER DENYING IMPROPERLY FILED MOTIONS
On August 13, 2015, Plaintiffs Theodore Visner and Kathy Smith filed a Request for a
Temporary Restraining Order. See Pls. Mot. for TRO, ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs filed the August 13,
2015 Request on the miscellaneous docket and paid the $46.00 miscellaneous case filing fee.
Because Plaintiffs filinga motion for a temporary restraining order and motion to recuse
sought adversarial relief, it was moved to the civil docket. See Order Transferring Case, ECF
No. 2. When the case was moved to the civil docket, Plaintiffs were required to meet civil filing
requirements. This includes a higher filing fee than that required by the miscellaneous docket.
Plaintiffs have yet to satisfy the civil case filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. They have received one extension.
On October 18, 2015, Plaintiffs, someone else, or an organization of third parties
purporting to act on Plaintiffs behalf, faxed a document directly to the assigned judges
chambers titled MOTION TO REQUEST CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND TO WAIVE ALL
FEES AUTOMATIC STAY REQUESTED DURING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
(TRO) AND STATUS QUO ANTE AUGUST 13, 2015 (Motion to Request). Motions and

1:15-cv-12899-TLL-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 11/12/15 Pg 2 of 4

Pg ID 82

other documents that parties wish to have filed with the Clerk of Court may not be filed by
faxing the document to the assigned judges chambers. The document will therefore be rejected.
As the local rules explain, and as Plaintiffs have already been advised, documents must be
electronically filed if a party is an authorized e-filer. The next day, a document titled MOTION
TO EXTEND TIME DUE TO LEGAL INCOMPETENCY OF MR TED VISNER WHILE
INCARCERATED ARREST OF MR. TED VISNER AND SEIZURE OF HIS PROPERTY
DURING REQUESTED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) AND PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS (sic throughout) (Motion to Extend) was received by mail by the Clerk of Court and
docketed as a motion for an extension. See Mot., ECF No. 10.
Three days later, the Motion to Request was received by mail by the Clerk of Court and
filed on the docket. See Mot., ECF No. 12. In the Motion to Request, Plaintiffs, or an
organization purporting to act on their behalf,
. . . move[] the Court once again to agree to change the address for Mr. Ted
Visner, waive all the fees in the present case since the Isabella County Sheriff
have destroyed all his personal belongings, and agree to Stay the Present case
until a hearing date is scheduled, and then a Status Quo Ante situation will be
requested, and agree to postpone and extend the time for any upcoming event,
motion or hearing for 30 days, according to FRCP Title II, Rule 6,1,(b)(1)[.]
Id. at 1 (sic throughout). The motion also states that Mr. Visner had to change his residence, and
lost access to his email accounts and efiling possiblities [sic]. Id. at 1. Further, the motion
includes the following request: [s]ince Mr. Vsiner [sic] has lost all his personal belongings and
is indigent he requests that the Court fees in this case be waived. Id. at 2.
Both motions will be denied. The motions represent that they are filed by a group named
Actions for Justice or AXJ. The two most recent motions have contained the following:
Note: AXJ has requested leave to appear only in the capacity of Amicus Curiae since the
-2-

1:15-cv-12899-TLL-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 11/12/15 Pg 3 of 4

Pg ID 83

Plaintiffs have not been able to appear for the reasons mentioned. Powers of Attorney were
submitted to the Court in the original filing back on or about August 13, 2015. See Mots., ECF
Nos. 10 & 12 (formatting in original). The motions appear to have been filed solely by the entity
AXJ, and not by Theodore Visner or Kathy Smith, the named plaintiffs. The motions are not
proper pleadings to be received and filed by the Plaintiffs for multiple reasons.
First, if AXJ purports to be acting as amicus curiae, they have not, despite their claim,
requested leave to so act. Indeed, even if AXJ has moved for leave to file a brief as amicus
curiae, that leave would be denied. This case is not, currently, of such a sort that amicus curiae
briefs are necessary to resolve rote procedural issues such as the payment of filing fees or the
extension of deadlines. Further, even if AXJ were granted permission to file briefs as amicus
curiae, there is currently nothing on the docket to which they may act as amicus curiae. It is the
law of this Circuit that amici may not seek affirmative relief. That is, the Sixth Circuit does not
recognize litigating amicus curiae or common law amicus curiae. United States v. State of
Mich., 940 F.2d 143, 165 (6th Cir. 1991). The actual litigation of matters is left to parties-ininterest. Amicus curiae may then, if given leave, supplement arguments made parties in interest.
Second, AXJ, if not amicus curiae, purports to be acting pursuant to a legal power of
attorney. It represents that this power of attorney was granted to AXJ by Plaintiffs and that the
appropriate documents are located in the initial case filing. Attached to the document used by
Plaintiffs to initiate this case is only a power of attorney between AXJ and Kathy Smith. Thus,
AXJ has not represented that it holds a power of attorney for Plaintiff Theodore Visner. But even
if it did, it could not represent either Plaintiff without legal counsel. Organizations may not
appear on behalf of themselves, i.e. pro se. See, e.g., A.M.A.R.A. Temple of Moorish Sci. v.
Deary, Case No. 4:13-CV-624, 2013 WL 4734092, at *1 & n.5 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2013); Duffee

-3-

1:15-cv-12899-TLL-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 11/12/15 Pg 4 of 4

Pg ID 84

v. Taco Bueno Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 3:11-CV-2104, 2012 WL 1563905, at *2 (N.D. Tex.
Feb. 29, 2012) report and recommendation adopted, Case No. 3:11-CV-2104, 2012 WL 1563901
(N.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2012). AXJs papers, not filed through counsel, but purportedly on behalf of
the Plaintiffs, are improper and will be denied as such.
One more note regarding AXJs proposed representation is necessary. If indeed AXJ
wishes to represent Plaintiffs pursuant to a valid power of attorney, it will need to locate an
attorney authorized to practice before this Court and have its attorney file an appearance on the
docket.
Next, it appears that the motion purportedly filed by Plaintiffs on September 24, 2015
was actually filed by AXJ on behalf of Plaintiffs. See Mot., ECF No. 7. That motion, or what
remains of it, will also be denied for the reasons set forth above. The order issued on October 14,
2015 will remain in place since it is within the Courts inherent authority to modify its
scheduling orders. Plaintiffs still have until November 16, 2015 to object to Magistrate Judge
Morriss Report or otherwise comply with the Courts civil case filing fee (including by filing a
meritorious application to proceed in forma pauperis).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motions, ECF Nos. 7, 10, & 12, filed on the
Courts docket by the organization Actions for Justice, a.k.a. AXJ, are DENIED.
Dated: November 12, 2015

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on November 12, 2015.
s/Michael A. Sian
MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager

-4-