Bills et al v. Klee
Filing
56
ORDER (1) Withdrawing Reference to Magistrate Judge, (2) Conditionally Appointing Counsel for Plaintiff, (3) Terminating Defendants' 28 , 32 and 41 MOTIONS to Dismiss and Plaintiff's Objection to 52 Report and Recommendation Without Prejudice, and (4) Staying Action Pending Appointment of Counsel. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICKY BILLS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15-cv-11414
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
v.
DANIEL HEYNS et. al.
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) WITHDRAWING REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE,
(2) CONDITIONALLY APPOINTING COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF, (3)
TERMINATING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF ## 28, 32,
41) AND PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (ECF #52) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND (4)
STAYING ACTION PENDING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
In this prisoner civil rights action, state prisoner Ricky Bills (“Bills”) alleges
that numerous current and former employees of the Michigan Department of
Corrections (the “MDOC”) misappropriated or misapplied funds that were deposited
into his prison bank account. (See Amended Complaint, ECF #18.) Bills’ primary
claim is that the Defendants violated an October 7, 2008, written order entered by
the Ingraham County Circuit Court (the “State Court Order”). (See ECF #53 at 22,
Pg. ID 520.) The State Court Order required the MDOC to retain funds deposited
on Bills’ behalf in order to pay a filing fee that Bills owed. (See id.) Bills says that
the Defendants have not complied with the order and that, as a result, he has an
1
outstanding balance that prevents him from filing documents in the state court. (See
generally Am. Compl.)
The Defendants have each moved to dismiss Bills’ claims (the “Motions”).
(See ECF ## 28, 32, and 41.) On January 4, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Court grant
the Motions and dismiss Bills’ claims with prejudice (the “R&R”). (See ECF #52.)
Bills filed timely objections to the R&R on January 24, 2017 (the “Objections”).1
(See ECF #53.)
The Court is not comfortable that dismissal of the Amended Complaint is
warranted at this time. The Court believes that the most efficient and appropriate
course of action is to (1) withdraw the order of reference to the Magistrate Judge
(ECF #25), (2) terminate the Motions and the Objections (ECF ## 28, 32, 41, and
52) without prejudice, (3) refer this action to the Court’s Pro Bono Committee and
conditionally appoint counsel for Bills providing that the committee is successful in
enlisting pro bono counsel on Bills’ behalf, and (4) stay this action pending the
appointment of counsel. If the Pro Bono Committee is unsuccessful in enlisting
counsel, counsel will not be appointed and Bills will continue to proceed pro se or
1
Bills identified this filing as a “Motion for Reconsideration.” (See ECF #53.) On
February 2, 2017, the Court entered a written Order in which it construed Bills’
“motion” as objections to the R&R. (See ECF #54.)
2
retain counsel at his own expense. Upon the appointment of pro bono counsel, the
Court will schedule a telephonic status conference with all counsel to discuss how
this action should proceed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2017
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on February 27, 2017, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
(313) 234-5113
3
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?