Alam v. Hamtramck Police Department et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RABBI ALAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
HAMTRAMCK POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:25-cv-12592
District Judge Susan K. DeClercq
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
/
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL COPIES FOR EACH DEFENDANT
Plaintiff, proceeding in pro per, filed his complaint and an application to
proceed in forma pauperis on August 20, 2025. Plaintiff then filed a motion for
leave to file an amended complaint, which Judge DeClercq granted on September
4, 2025. (ECF No. 6.) Judge DeClercq then granted the application to proceed in
forma pauperis, and issued an order directing Plaintiff to submit service
documents. (ECF Nos. 7, 8.) 	The matter has now been referred to me “for
all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all
non−dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and
recommendation on all dispositive.” (ECF No. 9.)
Case 2:25-cv-12592-SKD-APP ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 1 of 3

2
The docket reflects that service documents were timely submitted on
September 18, 2025, but the Clerk’s Office has yet to receive the required copies
of the amended complaint. Plaintiff has apparently submitted copies of his motion
for leave to file an amended complaint, rather than the amended complaint itself.
The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) cannot effectuate service until copies of
the operative pleading have been submitted. Accordingly, Plaintiff is DIRECTED
to submit copies of his amended complaint (one for each Defendant, and one
additional for the Clerk’s Office) on or before November 4, 2025. The Clerk of
the Court shall file one copy on the docket and tender the remaining copies to the
USMS for service on the Defendants.
When filing his amended complaint, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to case law
indicating that police departments in Michigan are not amenable to suit, as actions
against them are in effect actions against the city itself. “A suit against a city
police department in Michigan is one against the city itself, because the city is the
real party in interest.” Haverstick Enterprises, Inc., v. Financial Federal Credit,
Inc., 32 F.3d 989, 992 n.1 (6th Cir. 1994); see also Boykin v. Van Buren Twp., 479
F.3d 444, 450 (6th Cir. 2007) (“Van Buren Township Police Department is
subsumed within the Van Buren Township as a municipal entity to be sued under §
1983, and thus the Police Department was improperly included as a separate
defendant in Boykin’s suit.”); Laise v. City of Utica, 970 F.Supp. 605, 607 (E.D.
Case 2:25-cv-12592-SKD-APP ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Mich . 1997) (dismissing claim against Utica Police Department because it is not
an entity capable of being sued). Thus, if Plaintiff’s amended complaint includes
the “Hamtramck Police Department” as a Defendant, the Court will issue a report
and recommendation to dismiss that entity as only the City of Hamtramack should
be included as a Defendant for claims against the police department.
Additionally, the amended complaint must comply with Local Rule 15.1,
which requires that “[a]ny amendment to a pleading, whether filed as a matter of
course or upon a motion to amend, must . . . reproduce the entire pleading as
amended, and may not incorporate any prior pleading by reference.” Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s amended complaint must contain any claims he intends to pursue from
the current operative pleading, as well as any claims he is adding, in one document.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 20, 2025
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-12592-SKD-APP ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 3 of 3