UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DENNIS GUY ERDMAN,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-CV-14715-DT

vs.

 DISTRICT JUDGE NANCY G. EDMUNDS

DETROIT, CITY OF, MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS 

FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO ADJOURN HEARING

This matter comes before the Court on three motions filed by Plaintiff. He filed two Motions

for Order to Show Cause on March 5, 2009. (Docket nos. 10, 11). Plaintiff also filed a Motion to

Adjourn Hearing on April 2, 2009. (Docket no. 20). Defendants have responded to Plaintiff’s

Motion to Adjourn Hearing. (Docket no. 21). All pretrial matters have been referred to the

undersigned. (Docket no. 5). The Court dispenses with oral argument pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR

7.1(e). These motions are now ready for ruling.

Plaintiff alleges in his “Diversity Complaint” that he pled nolo contendere to charges of

vehicular manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident in 1989. (Docket no. 1). In 1991 his

conviction for leaving the scene of an accident was allegedly vacated. Plaintiff further alleges that

in 2000 he became aware that the victim was intoxicated at the time he stepped in front of Plaintiff’s

truck which supposedly proves his legal innocence. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants

“manipulated the record by suppressing evidence in this case, falsely accusing Plaintiff of murdering

the decedent.” (Id. at 3). Plaintiff seeks damages as relief and the return of money collected from

2:08-cv-14715-NGE-MKM Doc # 23 Filed 04/29/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 154
his father’s estate by the Michigan State Treasurer. (Id.). 

Plaintiff’s first Motion for Order to Show Cause requests that the Court order the Michigan

Department of Corrections to show cause why it has not responded to Plaintiff’s subpoena seeking

copies of his institutional file, medical file, parole board file, and court orders. (Docket no. 10). His

second Motion for Order to Show Cause requests that the Court order the Wayne County Circuit

Court to show cause why it has not responded to Plaintiff’s subpoena seeking copies of the filings

in two court cases. (Docket no. 11). Plaintiff fails to explain the relevance of these requested

documents. In addition, Defendants Wayne County and the City of Detroit have filed dispositive

motions arguing that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994),

among other bases for granting their motions. (Docket nos. 9, 15). If Defendants are correct that

this action is barred by Heck, there will be no need for discovery. Under these circumstances,

Plaintiff’s motions will be denied without prejudice. See Skousen v. Brighton High School, 305 F.3d

520, 526-27 (6th Cir. 2002) (merits of summary judgment motion asserting qualified immunity

should be ruled upon prior to granting discovery).

Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Adjourn Hearing and for Production of Defendant Wayne

County Michigan’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket no. 20). Plaintiff claims he has not

yet received a copy of Wayne County’s summary judgment motion. He asks that the Court provide

him with a copy and extend his time for responding to the motion. (Docket no. 20 at 2). Defendant

Wayne County in response states that it mailed Plaintiff another copy of its motion after receiving

a copy of Plaintiff’s Motion to Adjourn. (Docket no. 21). Therefore, Plaintiff should now have a

copy of the motion. The Court will grant Plaintiff a 30-day extension on his time for responding to

this motion.

-2-

2:08-cv-14715-NGE-MKM Doc # 23 Filed 04/29/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 155
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Order to Show Cause (docket

nos. 10, 11) are DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Adjourn Hearing (docket no. 20)

is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant Wayne County’s Motion for

Summary Judgment on or before May 20, 2009, and is otherwise DENIED.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of ten days from the date of this

Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible under 28

U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Dated: April 29, 2009 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this Opinion and Order was served upon Denis Guy Erdman

and Counsel of Record on this date.

Dated: April 29, 2009 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Courtroom Deputy

-3-

2:08-cv-14715-NGE-MKM Doc # 23 Filed 04/29/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 156