P was the plaintiff in a divorce action. P filed that action against Lisa Tidik, who was represented by Paul A. Longton (D). D, the judge, presided at that trial and issued a final Judgment of Divorce. In the divorce decree, D included a provision requiring that P post a bond with each motion filed with the court as security against costs or sanctions potentially awardable under Michigan Court Rule 2.114(E). This was due to P's filing of numerous motions during the course of his divorce proceedings. P alleges that he has a constitutional right to visit his children, and that that right has been consistently violated by Ds. P alleges that Ds are involved in a complex conspiracy to violate his rights to visit his children. P filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the United States Constitution. P had filed a similar complaint on November 16, 1995, which was dismissed. In response to this second complaint, Ds have filed a motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), or alternatively, for dismissal, pursuant to 12(b)(6). D has also filed a motion seeking an order enjoining P from filing any further actions relating to the disposition or enforcement of his 1995 divorce action.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.