Greiner v. Charter County of Macomb, Michigan et al
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 130 Motion for Stay of Proceedings. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 14-cv-13979
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
CHARTER COUNTY OF
MACOMB, MICHIGAN, a/k/a
MACOMB COUNTY, et al.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS (ECF #130)
This case began in 2014. At that time, Plaintiff John Greiner (“Greiner”)
brought numerous claims against Defendant Charter County of Macomb, Michigan
(“Macomb County”) and his union. (See Compl., ECF #1.) The claims relate to the
termination of Greiner’s employment with Macomb County. Greiner has been
represented by two different attorneys at various points in this litigation. Both
attorneys withdrew from representing Greiner due to a breakdown in the attorneyclient relationship.
Following the withdrawal of the attorneys, the Court entered an Opinion and
Order in which it granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Michigan
Council 25 American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-
CIO and granted summary judgment in part to Macomb County. (See ECF #117.)
Greiner’s sole remaining claim in the action is the First Amendment retaliation claim
against Macomb County. That claim is the subject of a pending motion for summary
judgment by Macomb County. (See ECF #123.)
Greiner has now filed a motion to stay these proceedings so that he may seek
yet another lawyer to represent him. (See ECF #130.) The Court declines to grant a
Greiner has had ample opportunity to find and retain counsel. After Greiner’s
first attorney withdrew from representing him, the Court stayed the action for 45
days to allow Greiner to find a new attorney. (See ECF #65 at Pg. ID 782.) The
Court thereafter granted Greiner three additional weeks to find counsel. (See Mar.
14, 2016 Status Conference Tr., ECF #95 at Pg. ID 1825.) Furthermore, Greiner’s
second attorney withdrew over seven months ago (see ECF #99), and during that
time Greiner has not secured substitute counsel.
Moreover, there is no reason to believe that Greiner will be able to find an
attorney willing to take his case. When Greiner’s first attorney in this action
withdrew, Greiner asked roughly twenty attorneys to take his case, but none would.
(See Mar. 14, 2016 Status Conference Tr., ECF #95 at Pg. ID 1820-21.) While
Greiner ultimately was able to find a second lawyer willing to take his case, that
lawyer entered the case at a much earlier stage – before the completion of discovery
and before the Court’s ruling on the summary judgment motions. At this very late
stage in the proceedings, it is unlikely that Greiner could find an attorney willing to
enter the case on his behalf. Indeed, the Court questions whether any attorney would
enter the case now given Greiner’s well-documented inability to get along with his
And even if Greiner could find counsel willing to appear in this action at this
stage, the Court has no confidence that Greiner would be able to work constructively
with that lawyer as the proceedings move toward completion. As the Court noted in
its prior Opinion and Order, three separate attorneys have withdrawn from
representing Greiner in litigation against Macomb County due to breakdowns in the
attorney-client relationship (the two attorneys who have withdrawn from this action
and one who withdrew from related state-court litigation). (See ECF #117 at Pg. ID
Under these circumstances, the Court will not exercise its discretion to stay
the case again to permit Greiner to search for yet another lawyer.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for stay of proceedings (ECF
#130) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 25, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on October 25, 2017, by electronic means and/or
s/Holly A. Monda
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?