Dean v. Prison Health Services et al
Filing
40
OPINION AND ORDER denying 39 Motion for relief from judgment. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL DEAN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 10-14135
v.
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
On April 28, 2011, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation, overruling Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) on May 6, 2011. The motion
will be denied.
I. STANDARD
Rule 60(b)(1) permits a court to “relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding” where there is evidence of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect.” “‘[R]elief under Rule 60(b) is circumscribed by public policy favoring finality of
judgments and termination of litigation.’” In re Ferro Corp. Derivative Litigations, 511 F.3d
611, 623 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Trs. of the UMWA Combined
Benefit Fund, 2249 F.3d 519, 524 (6th Cir. 2001)).
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s motion appears to present three arguments. First, Plaintiff argues that the
court erred in dismissing for failure to exhaust state remedies. This argument contends
that the prison did not timely resolve Plaintiff’s first grievance, requiring him to file an
additional grievance that he alleges was completely resolved on August 31, 2010. As a
result, Plaintiff says, Defendants’ exhaustion defense should have failed. Second, Plaintiff
asserts that his underlying claims present a case or controversy, and therefore this action
is not moot. Finally, Plaintiff contests the substitution of the magistrate judge in this case,
contending that the substitution was not justified as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(f).1
Although Plaintiff does not explicitly frame these arguments under Rule 60(b)(1), the court
construes Plaintiff as arguing mistake or inadvertence.
Plaintiff’s first allegation is incorrect, and therefore he has not demonstrated any
mistake on the part of the court. In order to exhaust state remedies in the Michigan
Department of Corrections, a prisoner’s grievance must progress through all three steps of
the grievance procedure. See Reed-Bey v. Pramstaller, 603 F.3d 322, 324 (6th Cir. 2010).
The Magistrate Judge accurately observed that an inmate who is dissatisfied with the Step
III response may contact the ombudsman. (R&R 13.) Plaintiff seems to be arguing that
the ombudsman’s response may exhaust state remedies irrespective of whether the inmate
has completed all three steps of the grievance process, as is required by law. But Plaintiff
offers no authority that states an ombudsman’s letter can substitute for the normal
exhaustion course, and the Magistrate Judge appropriately rejected this argument. (R&R
17-18.) In addition, he cites cases that stand for the proposition that “[w]hen prison officials
decline to enforce their own procedural requirements and opt to consider
otherwise-defaulted claims on the merits, so as a general rule will we.” Reed-Bey, 603
F.3d at 325. But this is not a case where prison officials have decided to consider
“otherwise-defaulted claims”; here, prison officials have simply taken longer to resolve
1
On March 17, 2011, the matter was reassigned from Magistrate Judge Randon
to Magistrate Judge Michelson.
2
Plaintiff’s claims than he would have liked. The fact remains that, as correctly found by the
Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff did not complete Step III on any of his grievances prior to filing
this federal lawsuit, and therefore a dismissal for failure to exhaust was proper. All Plaintiff
had to do to avoid a failure to exhaust defense was to diligently prosecute his grievance
and patiently await adjudication by the prison system. Instead, he jumped the gun and filed
this lawsuit. There is no mistake in the report and recommendation, nor in the adoption of
it, and the motion will be denied on this first ground.
Second, Plaintiff appears to believe that his case was dismissed as moot. It was
not; the case was dismissed solely for failure to exhaust. The court assumes the confusion
arose from the court’s termination of two motions “as moot.” This simply means that the
motions were no longer relevant, and no longer required a disposition, because of the other
actions taken by the court and the parties in the case. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for an
extension of time to file objections was found moot because he actually filed objections that
were considered by the court, and therefore he did not need more time. (4/28/11 Order 2.)
Similarly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss was moot because the court dismissed the action
for failure to exhaust, and therefore did not need to consider alternative grounds for
dismissal. (Id. at 1 n.2.)
Third, Plaintiff asserts it was a mistake justifying relief from judgment to substitute
Magistrate Judge Michelson for Magistrate Judge Randon without explanation. (See
3/17/11 Notice.) Plaintiff relies on 28 U.S.C. § 636(f), which provides certain requirements
that must be satisfied by a chief judge’s order during an emergency before a magistrate
judge may perform “duties specified in subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section in a judicial
district other than the judicial district for which he has been appointed.” This subsection is
inapplicable in this case, because Magistrate Judge Michelson was not assigned to this
3
case in response to an emergency, and because she is not a magistrate judge from
another district. Plaintiff has not shown a mistake here.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Relief from Judgment” [Dkt.
# 39] is DENIED.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 8, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on
this date, June 8, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(313) 234-5522
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\10-14135.DEAN.DenyReliefJudgment.jmp.wpd
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?