Reed v. Third Judicial Circuit Court

Filing 6

NOTICE of Intended Denial of 5 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Arelious Ray Reed and setting deadline for 12/19/2011. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ARELIOUS RAY REED,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:08-cv-14836

THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT,
Defendant.
/
NOTICE OF INTENDED DENIAL OF “MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”
Plaintiff initiated this action in forma pauperis on November 18, 2008, when he
filed a pro se complaint alleging that his constitutional rights had been violated by
repeated postponements of his criminal trial proceedings in the Third Judicial Circuit
Court of Michigan. On November 25, 2008, the court summarily dismissed this case
pursuant to the screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Specifically, the
court, construing Plaintiff’s complaint as an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, found
that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted because
Defendant is not a “person” within the meaning of that statute. (See Order Summ.
Dismissal 2, Dkt. # 4.)
The court heard nothing further from Plaintiff until October 31, 2011, when he
filed a “Motion for Summary Judgment.” Though the court cannot readily ascertain the
legal basis for Plaintiff’s motion, he argues that he is entitled to judgment against
Defendant in the amount of $14,107,500.00 because he has proof of a “linked
transaction” that Defendant “did not contest.” This proof seems to be a number of
photocopied documents, filed with Plaintiff’s motion, that appear to evince a Uniform

Commercial Code filing by Plaintiff with the Michigan Department of State of a
$13,500,000 invoice to Defendant.
The court can discern no grounds for awarding Plaintiff the relief he requests.
First and foremost, this case is closed and has been for three years. There is no
provision under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 which allows the court to grant
summary judgment on a closed case. Yet, Plaintiff’s current motion makes no mention
of the dismissal of the complaint—not even to challenge the propriety of that
dismissal1—but simply proceeds as if the case was never dismissed. Morever, even if
the court could entertain the motion, Plaintiff has failed to present any coherent legal
argument which would persuade the court that summary judgment was substantively
appropriate. For these reasons,
THE COURT HEREBY GIVES NOTICE that it intends to deny Plaintiff’s “Motion
for Summary Judgment” [Dkt. # 5].
However, the court will not act until December 19, 2011, and will consider any
additional information or explanation Plaintiff may chose to file before that date if he
wishes to persuade the court that some other course or further consideration of his
position is appropriate.

s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 30, 2011

1

The court states no view about the likelihood of success of any such attempt to
rekindle Plaintiff’s case.
2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, November 30, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa G. Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\08-14836.REED.ShowCauseDenSummJ.set.3.wpd

3