Carter v. Byrd et al
Filing
27
OPINION and ORDER re 23 Objection, 24 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision,& SETTING ASIDE TEXT-ONLY Order on Motion to Stay, & RETURNING MATTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOEL CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 14-CV-13234
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan
KENDALL BYRD, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
TEXT-ONLY ORDER ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 6, 2015, and RETURNING
THE MATTER TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION AND ORDER
Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff Joel Carter, a Michigan Department of
Corrections prisoner, filed this civil rights lawsuit on August 20, 2014 against three
prison officials alleging that he was retaliated against for engaging in activity
protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court
referred all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris.
One of the three Defendants – Randall Haas – filed a motion for summary
judgment on December 8, 2014, arguing that Plaintiff cannot satisfy one of the
elements of his First Amendment claim against Defendant Haas and, in any event,
Defendant Haas is entitled to qualified immunity.1
On January 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion asking the Court to defer ruling
on Defendant Haas’s summary judgment motion pending the completion of
discovery. Plaintiff brings his motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56(d), which allows courts to, among other things, “defer considering” a motion
for summary judgment “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for
specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.” In his
motion, Plaintiff explains what evidence he seeks to obtain through discovery and
why that evidence is necessary to defeat Defendant Haas’s summary judgment
motion. Plaintiff states that the evidence that he hopes to obtain through discovery
will show that the purported facts contained in Defendant Haas’s affidavit, filed in
support of his summary judgment motion, are false. Plaintiff attaches an affidavit
to his motion, as required by Rule 56(d).
About one month later, on February 6, 2015, Defendant Haas filed a motion
to stay discovery arguing, among other things, that discovery should be stayed
until his motion for summary judgment is resolved. Defendant Haas points out
that the motion, if granted, would end the lawsuit against him and eliminate the
need for discovery.
1
At the time Defendant Haas filed his motion for summary judgment, the other
two Defendants had not yet been served.
2
On February 6, 2015, Magistrate Judge Morris issued a “text-only order”
denying both Plaintiff’s motion to defer ruling on Defendant Haas’s summary
judgment motion pending discovery and Defendant Haas’s motion to stay
discovery pending resolution of his summary judgment motion.
The order
provides no analysis of the motions and does not include any explanation as to why
they were denied.
Both Plaintiff and Defendant Haas have filed objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s text-only order. Plaintiff continues to argue that discovery is necessary to
enable him to properly respond to Defendant Haas’s summary judgment motion,
and Defendant Haas continues to argue that discovery should be stayed pending
resolution of his motion for summary judgment.
The Court must modify or set aside Magistrate Judge Morris’s text-only
order if it is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The
Court is unable to rule on the propriety of the order, however, because the order is
entirely unexplained. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s text-only order dated
February 6, 2015 denying the two motions discussed above is SET ASIDE, and
the matter is RETURNED to Magistrate Judge Morris to reconsider the motions
and provide an explanation of her rulings.
SO ORDERED.
3
Dated: March 20, 2015
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Joel Carter
Kevin R. Himebaugh, Esq.
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?