Bills et al v. Klee

Filing 98

ORDER (1) Overruling Plaintiff's 93 Objection to 92 Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion and Setting Case Deadlines. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICKEY BILLS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-11414
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
PAUL KLEE, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION (ECF No. 93) TO
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND SETTING CASE
DEADLINES (ECF No. 92)
Plaintiff Rickey Bills is a state inmate in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections. In this prisoner civil-rights action, Bills alleges that the
Defendants interfered with his right to access the courts and retaliated against him
for filing lawsuits. (See Sec. Am. Compl., ECF No. 67.)
On July 14, 2020, the Court received a filing from Bills. (See ECF No. 91.)
The filing was difficult to follow, but it was titled “This Motion,” and the assigned
Magistrate Judge therefore construed the filing as a motion. (See Order, ECF No.
92.) In the motion, Bills (1) sought permission to amend his Complaint to add a
claim arising out of the confiscation of a defibrillator that he was provided and (2)
asked the Court to provide him certain documents that it had previously mailed to
him during the March – June 2017 time period. (See ECF No. 91.)
1

The Magistrate Judge issued an order denying the motion on January 19, 2021.
(See Order, ECF No. 92.) The Magistrate Judge first denied Bills’ request to amend
his Complaint. (See id., PageID.978.) He explained that Bills was not entitled to
amend at this late stage of the case, and, in any event, Bills’ proposed claim arising
out of the confiscation of his defibrillator was unrelated to his only remaining claims
in this action. (See id.) The Magistrate Judge next concluded that there were no
documents pertinent to Bills’ claims for the Court to send him from the time period
Bills’ identified. (See id.) Finally, the Magistrate Judge set a schedule for the parties
to file witness lists, complete discovery, and file dispositive motions. (See id.,
PageID.979.)
On February 2, 2021, Bills filed what he called an “objection” to the
Magistrate Judge’s order. (See Objection, ECF No. 93.) But in the objection, Bills
did not identify what portion(s) of the Magistrate Judge’s order were objectionable.
Nor did he raise any issue with the Magistrate Judge’s legal analysis. Instead, he
explained that he recently had a false-positive COVID-19 test, he had been
transferred to a medical facility away from his legal papers, and he could not file
objections at that time. (See id.)

Then, on March 15, 2021, Bills filed a second

document with the Court. (See ECF No. 97.) In that document, Bills again said that
he could not file objections because of his false-positive COVID-19 test and his
subsequent separation from his legal papers. (See id., PageID.997.) Bills therefore
2

“request[ed] that the objections be carried over for when [he] do[es] the discovery.”
(Id., PageID.997.)

Bills also included with this document a witness list that

complied with the Magistrate Judge’s scheduling order. (See id., PageID.998-999.)
Bills’ objection is OVERRULED.

He has not identified any specific

objection to the Magistrate Judge’s order. Nor has he even suggested in the broadest
sense how the Magistrate Judge may have erred. Moreover, Bills has not shown that
his separation from his legal papers left him unable to file objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s order. The order was relatively straight-forward, and Bills has
not sufficiently explained why the separation from his legal papers rendered him
unable to explain why he believed the Magistrate Judge may have erred. Finally, it
appears that Bills now has access to his legal materials and typewriter again, and he
has demonstrated an ability to follow the Magistrate Judge’s order by timely filing
his witness list in compliance with the Magistrate Judge’s instructions. Bills simply
has not provided any basis to sustain his objections or to grant him additional time
to raise more-specific objections. The Court will therefore not disturb the Magistrate
Judge’s order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 20, 2021
3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on April 20, 2021, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4