UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL SALAMI,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 15-12248

Honorable Terrence G. Berg

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

DEPUTY CLEMENTS, et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

ORDER ON VARIOUS MOTIONS [R. 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44]

Plaintiff Michael Salami, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a

complaint alleging various constitutional claims against certain Macomb 

County Jail officials, Correct Care Solutions (“CCS”), the Macomb County 

Jail and Sheriff Anthony Wickersham. Below, the Court will address a 

number of recent motions filed by Salami. 

However, as an initial matter, the motions at issue demonstrate that 

Salami has not apprised himself of relevant Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure or the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan. The 

Court admonishes Salami that his future filings must comply with the 

applicable rules and that failure to do so could result in sanctions up to and 

including dismissal.

4:15-cv-12248-TGB-EAS Doc # 46 Filed 08/28/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 125
2

1) Motions to Amend

Prior to service of Defendants, Salami moved to amend his 

complaint. [R. 16]. As Salami had a unilateral right to amend his complaint 

once before it was served, the Court granted his motion and directed him to 

file his amended complaint by August 7, 2015. [R. 19]. 

On July 23, 2015, Salami filed another motion to amend his complaint 

on the same basis as the motion already granted. [R. 25]. The Court 

denied this motion as moot. [R. 26]. Since that time, Salami has filed four 

additional motions to amend, but has not filed his amended complaint as 

ordered. Further, Salami’s filings are deficient because Eastern District of 

Michigan Local Rule 15.1 states, “Any amendment to a pleading, whether 

filed as a matter of course or upon a motion to amend, must, except by 

leave of court, reproduce the entire pleading as amended, and may not 

incorporate any prior pleading by reference.” Salami has failed to 

reproduce the entire pleading as he intended for them to be amended, in 

violation of this rule.

Nonetheless, because the time for defendants to answer has not 

passed and because of the lenient standard of amendment under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 15, the Court will GRANT these motions [R. 36, 39, 

40, 43]. However, Salami is cautioned that he cannot constantly amend his 

4:15-cv-12248-TGB-EAS Doc # 46 Filed 08/28/15 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 126
3

complaint, and any motions to amend must be accompanied by the entire 

proposed amended pleading. Since Salami’s proposed amendments are 

fragmented, he must compile them all into one complete amended 

complaint and file it with the Court on or before September 10, 2015. 

Salami has already once failed to comply with this Court’s order regarding 

this issue, so he is warned that failure to timely file a complete amended 

complaint may result in sanctions up to and including dismissal. 

2) Motion for Subpoenas

Salami moves for subpoenas for the production of documents from 

various non-parties. Although served, Defendants have not yet responded 

to the complaint, nor has the time passed for them to do so. [R. 27, 28, 29, 

30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35]. Discovery cannot proceed until the time has 

passed for Defendants to respond the complaint, lest Defendants respond 

by moving to dismiss on grounds upon which discovery is not necessary. 

See e.g. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“[A] defendant 

pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the 

commencement of discovery.”). Now that the Court has granted Salami 

leave to file his amended complaint by September 10, 2015, Defendants’ 

responsive pleading is due fourteen days after service of that amended 

pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). If that date passes with no response, 

4:15-cv-12248-TGB-EAS Doc # 46 Filed 08/28/15 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 127
4

the Court will then issue a scheduling order, discovery will commence, and 

Salami may request the subpoenas he seeks via the Clerk’s Office of the 

Court. Thus, Salami’s motion for subpoenas [R. 37] is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

3) Motion to Be Present for Summary Judgment

Salami moves to be present during summary judgment, which the 

Court interprets as referring to any hearing on a motion for summary 

judgment. Presently there is no pending motion, let alone one for summary 

judgment. Therefore, this motion [R. 38] is premature and is DENIED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

4) Motion for Production of Documents

Salami seeks the production of various documents. However, the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make clear that discovery requests must 

first be directed to the party from whom discovery is sought, and a request 

to compel discovery should not be presented to the Court unless requested 

discovery has been withheld. Further, as noted above, discovery has not 

yet commenced, so his request is premature. Therefore, this motion [R. 

41] is DENIED. 

5) Motion to Put Video into Evidence

Finally, Salami requests that the video evidence requested in a 

4:15-cv-12248-TGB-EAS Doc # 46 Filed 08/28/15 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 128
5

previously denied motion for subpoena be admitted into evidence. This 

motion [R. 44] is DENIED. If video evidence is tendered to Salami in 

discovery, he may submit it to the Court only as allowed under the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, including as an attachment in support of a 

properly filed dispositive motion. The Court will not accept evidence 

piecemeal or disconnected from properly filed motions or responses to 

which it is supposedly relevant. 

For the foregoing reasons, Salami’s motions to amend [R. 36, 39, 40, 

43] are GRANTED and a complete amended complaint MUST BE FILED 

WITH THE COURT ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 10, 2015. His 

remaining motions [R. 37, 38, 41, 44] are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2015 s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

Detroit, Michigan ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which 

provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of 

this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district 

4:15-cv-12248-TGB-EAS Doc # 46 Filed 08/28/15 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 129
6

judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1). 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 28, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

4:15-cv-12248-TGB-EAS Doc # 46 Filed 08/28/15 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 130