Bills et al v. Klee

Filing 108

ORDER striking 106 Request filed by Rickey Bills. Signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Grand. (DPer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICKEY BILLS,
Civil Action No. 15-11414
Plaintiff,
v.

Matthew F. Leitman
United States District Judge

PAUL KLEE, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/

David R. Grand
United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S “REQUEST FOR DEFENDANTS TO
CORRECT FALSE/PERJURED STATEMENT/CLAIM” (ECF No. 106)
Pro se Plaintiff Rickey Bills commenced this civil rights action on April 20, 2015,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that various Michigan Department of Corrections
officials interfered with his right of access to the courts by failing to ensure timely
compliance with a state-court restitution order.1
This case has a lengthy history; discovery is now closed, and the Defendants have
filed (on June 18, 2021) a motion for summary judgment, which remains pending. (ECF
No. 100.) One of the arguments contained in Defendants’ motion is that Defendant
Kristopher Steece is entitled to summary judgment on Bills’ retaliatory transfer claim
because he “did not order Bills’ transfer from Macomb Correctional Facility.” (ECF No.
100, PageID.1035.) Instead, citing to prison records, Defendants assert, “Bills’ transfer
order was approved by the MRF inspector, not by Steece.” (Id.; ECF No. 100-5.)

1

All pretrial matters have been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
(ECF No. 72.)

The Court has not yet received a response from Bills to Defendants’ summary
judgment motion. However, on July 1, 2021, Bills filed a document entitled, “Request for
Defendants to Correct False/Perjured Statement Claim.” (ECF No. 106.) That document
appears to address Defendants’ assertion about Steece. Specifically, Bills asserts that he is
“requesting that defendants [] make the corrections to the false/perjured claim that
Defendant Steece had nothing to do with the retaliatory transfer of [Bills] on March 20th
2017.” (Id.) Bills seems to intend this document to satisfy the “Safe Harbor” provisions
contained in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (Id.)
The Court will strike Bills’ filing. Rule 11 provides that before a sanctions motion
can be filed, the moving party’s motion for sanctions “must be served under Rule 5, but it
must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense,
contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service
or within another time the court sets.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) (emphasis added). Thus,
by filing his instant “Request” with the Court, Bills violated Rule 11(c)(2)’s prohibition on
filing “Safe Harbor” materials. For this reason, it is appropriate to strike Bills’ instant
“Request.”
Moreover, the Court notes that Bills offers no information as to why he believes the
contention in Defendants’ summary judgment motion about Steece’s involvement in his
transfer is inaccurate. While the Court is still awaiting Bills’ summary judgment motion,
it reminds him of the standards applicable to such motions. The party seeking summary
judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion, and
must identify particular portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine
2

dispute as to any material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986);
Alexander v. CareSource, 576 F.3d 551, 558 (6th Cir. 2009). “Once the moving party
satisfies its burden, ‘the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts
showing a triable issue.’” Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp., 256 F.3d 446, 453 (6th Cir.
2001) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587
(1986)). In response to a summary judgment motion, the opposing party may not rest on
its pleadings, nor “‘rely on the hope that the trier of fact will disbelieve the movant’s denial
of a disputed fact’ but must make an affirmative showing with proper evidence in order to
defeat the motion.” Alexander, 576 F.3d at 558 (quoting Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co.,
886 F.2d 1472, 1479 (6th Cir. 1989)). Indeed, “‘[t]he failure to present any evidence to
counter a well-supported motion for summary judgment alone is grounds for granting the
motion.’” Id. (quoting Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484, 496 (6th Cir. 2009)). “Conclusory
statements unadorned with supporting facts are insufficient to establish a factual dispute
that will defeat summary judgment.” Id. at 560 (citing Lewis v. Philip Morris, Inc., 355
F.3d 515, 533 (6th Cir. 2004)).
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Bills’ “Request for Defendants
to Correct False/Perjured Statement Claim” (ECF No. 106) is hereby STRICKEN.
Dated: July 12, 2021
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/David R. Grand
DAVID R. GRAND
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a period of
3

fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order within which to file
objections for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email
or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 12,
2021.
s/Eddrey O. Butts
EDDREY O. BUTTS
Case Manager

4