UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cr-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER ON STATUS CONFERENCE 

On May 10, 2019, the Court held an on-the-record in-person status conference 

to discuss several pending motions in this action. (See Notice, ECF #520.) For the 

reasons stated on the record at the status conference, and for the additional reasons 

stated below, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

 Scott’s motions for recusal of the Court (see ECF ## 514, 516, 522, and 

527) are DENIED for the reasons stated on the record. 

 Scott’s motions to terminate the appearance of his current counsel 

Kimberly Stout (see ECF ## 470, 495, 506, 507, 527, and 532) are 

GRANTED for the reasons stated on the record. As further explained on 

the record, the appearance of attorney Kimberly Stout on Scott’s behalf is 

TERMINATED except as set forth below. Ms. Stout’s sole function 

going forward in this matter is to perform the ministerial tasks identified 
on the record during the May 10, 2019, status conference. Moreover, Ms. 

Stout is not required to file a notice of appeal on behalf of Scott. The Court 

further finds that Scott was fully competent to make the decision to waive 

his right to counsel and that his decision to waive counsel was knowingly 

and voluntarily made. While Scott has raised questions about his mental 

health in previous filings with the Court, the Court is fully satisfied, based 

on (1) its review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ mental health report that 

the Court discussed on the record at the April 1, 2019, status conference 

and (2) its personal evaluation of Scott’s ability to follow and participate 

in the proceedings on the record during the May 10, 2019, status 

conference, that Scott is competent to proceed and to waive his right to 

counsel. 

 Scott’s motions for psychiatric examinations (see ECF ## 450, 457, and 

495) are DENIED for the reasons stated on the record, including Scott’s 

expressed desire to advance to sentencing without any further proceedings 

or evaluations between now and sentencing. Moreover, Scott’s requests 

for examinations were based, in part, on his desire to be transferred to the 

Wayne County Jail for an evaluation by a particular mental health 

professional. As explained on the record, the Court declines to transfer 

Scott to any non-federal facility for evaluation. In addition, and in any 
event, Ms. Stout explained on the record that she contacted the Wayne 

County Jail in an attempt to find the mental health professional that Scott 

requested, and Stout was unable to confirm that that professional worked 

at the jail. 

 Scott’s motions to disregard and not participate in the mental health 

evaluations set up by Ms. Stout (see ECF ## 462 and 474) are GRANTED 

for the reasons stated on the record. As Scott stated on the record, he does 

not want to participate in any proceedings or evaluations between now and 

sentencing. Scott also stated that he does not want to take advantage of the 

mental health evaluation set up by Ms. Stout, and paid for by the Court, to 

be performed by Atara Abramsky, Ph.D. The Court will not compel Scott 

to participate in that evaluation. 

 Scott’s motions to be transferred to the Wayne County Jail for medical 

reasons (see ECF ## 480, 490, 495, 506, and 526) are DENIED for the 

reasons stated on the record and for the additional reason that the Court is 

persuaded that the personnel at the Federal Bureau of Prisons can provide 

appropriate treatment for Scott. 

 Scott’s motion for an expert witness (see ECF #464) is DENIED based 

upon his statement at the status conference that he does not want to 
participate in any proceedings or take any additional actions between now 

and sentencing. 

 Scott’s motions for docket sheets (see ECF ## 423, 426, 427, and 451) are 

DENIED AS MOOT because the Court provided Scott with copies of the 

relevant docket sheets at the May 10, 2019, hearing. 

 Scott’s motions for certain court transcripts (see ECF ## 427, 441, and 

525) are DENIED because he can obtain those transcripts from his prior 

counsel. The Court has previously paid for the preparation of these 

transcripts and provided them to Scott’s prior counsel. Scott should direct 

his requests for those transcripts to his former counsel. The Court will not 

incur the additional expense to have the transcripts produced and sent to 

Scott a second time. Moreover, Scott has not shown that he now needs the 

transcripts to prepare for sentencing. 

 Scott’s motion for reconsideration (see ECF #469) is DENIED because 

Scott has failed to satisfy Local Rule 7.1(h). More specifically, Scott has 

failed to “demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties 

and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled” and 

failed to “show that correcting the defect will result in a different 

disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). 
 Scott’s motion for an investigator (see ECF #413) is DENIED based upon 

his statement at the status conference that he does not want to participate 

in any proceedings or take any additional actions between now and 

sentencing. Moreover, Scott has not persuaded the Court that an 

investigator is necessary prior to sentencing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: May 16, 2019 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on May 16, 2019, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764