There are numerous pleadings here but here are the most relevant — the case is captioned Bellfy v. Creagh (W.D. Mich.):
12 DCT Order on 2d TRO Request
Prior post on this case here.
There are numerous pleadings here but here are the most relevant — the case is captioned Bellfy v. Creagh (W.D. Mich.):
12 DCT Order on 2d TRO Request
Prior post on this case here.
Here are the materials in Bellfy v. Creagh (W.D. Mich.):
An excerpt:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ ex parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (docket # 2), filed today. Plaintiffs seek to “enjoin Defendant, or other State of Michigan officers, employees, agencies, subdivisions, successors, or assigns” from approving a proposed sale of State land in the Upper Peninsula. (docket # 2.) Plaintiffs contend that the sale would impair their rights under the 1836 Treaty of Washington and in a 2007 Consent Decree reaffirming those rights. The Consent Decree is the subject of another case in this District, United States of America v. State of Michigan, et al., No. 2:73-CV-26 (W.D. Mich. November 2, 2007) (consent decree, docket # 1799), currently assigned to Chief Judge Paul Maloney. The Consent Decree not only addresses substantive rights of the parties, but also describes detailed alternative dispute resolution procedures. (docket # 1799, pp. 62-67.) The nature of the claim Plaintiffs are attempting to assert pro se appear to touch on both procedural and substantive provisions of the Consent Decree.