Sourander v. Hanft et al

Filing 16

OPINION and ORDER Affirming Magistrate Judge Whalen's June 25, 2018 Order 8 Granting Defendants' Motion for More Definite Statement. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TMcg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATRICK ALAN SOURANDER,
Case No. 18-cv-11162

Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

v.
SHERIFF HOWARD HANFT, ET AL.,
Defendants.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
R. STEVEN WHALEN

/
OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHALEN’S
JUNE 25, 2018 ORDER [#8] GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s July 11, 2018 Objection [#10]
to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s June 25, 2018 Order [#8]. For the reasons
stated herein, the Court will AFFIRM Magistrate Judge Whalen’s Order [#8] and
OVERRULE Plaintiff’s Objection [#10].
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this prisoner civil rights action on April 12, 2018, alleging
violations by several Defendants working for Ogemaw County, Michigan. See
Dkt. No. 1, p. 12 (Pg. ID 12). On April 18, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion for
More Definite Statement, asserting Plaintiff’s Complaint (1) was illegible, (2)

-1-

failed to identify which Defendants were accused of committing which acts, and
(3) did not provide date, time, or location evidence for each alleged violation. See
Dkt. No. 2, pp. 10-11 (Pg. ID 35-36). Defendants argued that without more
definite information, they could not adequately respond to the Complaint and
defend the allegations. See id. at pp. 11-12 (Pg. ID 36-37).
In his Response filed May 3, 2018, Plaintiff raised no objections to
providing the missing information in his Complaint in a legible form. See Dkt. No.
3, p. 2 (Pg. ID 69). However, Plaintiff claimed that he could not provide dates and
times for the alleged violations because one of the Defendants seized his notes,
which he alleged in Counts 18 through 20 of his Complaint. See id. at p. 1 (Pg. ID
68).
Ultimately, Magistrate Judge Whalen granted Defendants’ Motion for More
Definite Statement, directing Plaintiff to (1) list each separate claim in a separate
count, (2) state which Defendant(s) violated that right, and (3) state what those
Defendant(s) did to violate that right and when and where they did it. See Dkt. No.
8, p. 3 (Pg. ID 127). This Objection [#10] ensued.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits a party to submit objections to
a magistrate judge’s ruling on non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
However, “When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-

-2-

dispositive motion, the ruling remains in full force and effect unless and until it is
stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive matter, the
district court must apply the “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law” standard of
review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The Supreme Court has held, “A finding is ‘clearly
erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on
the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395
(1948). Importantly, “this standard does not allow a reviewing court to reverse a
magistrate judge’s finding merely because it would have decided the matter
differently.” Sedgwick Ins. v. F.A.B.E. Custom Downstream Sys., Inc., 47 F. Supp.
3d 536, 538 (E.D. Mich. 2014).
“The ‘clearly erroneous’ standard applies only to the magistrate judge’s
factual findings; his legal conclusions are reviewed under the plenary ‘contrary to
law’ standard.” See id. (quoting Haworth, Inc. v. Herman Miller, Inc., 162 F.R.D.
289, 291 (W.D. Mich. 1995)). The Court’s review under the contrary to law
standard requires the exercise of independent judgment in determining whether the
magistrate judge’s legal conclusions “contradict or ignore applicable precepts of
law, as found in the Constitution, statutes, or case precedent.” Sedgwick Ins., 47 F.

-3-

Supp. 3d at 538 (quoting Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F. Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio
1992), aff’d, 19 F.3d 1432 (6th Cir. 1994).
IV. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s sole issue with Magistrate Judge Whalen’s Order is that he cannot
provide the dates and times for each alleged violation in his Complaint because one
of the Defendants seized his notes. See Dkt. No. 10, p. 2 (Pg. ID 132). In support
of his Objection, Plaintiff cites to Robinson v. Genesee County Sheriff’s
Department, where the court emphasized, “Clearly, prisoners who allege they have
been mistreated by sheriff deputies are not expected to maintain a detailed record
of when and how they were beaten.” See id. at p. 3 (Pg. ID 133); 2017 WL
1105060, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 24, 2017). Plaintiff suggests this case excuses his
inability to provide more detailed information surrounding the events in his
Complaint.
Having reviewed the record, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Whalen
that Plaintiff’s Complaint, as it stands, fails to provide Defendants with adequate
notice of the allegations against them. See Dkt. No. 8, p. 4 (Pg. ID 127). Indeed,
the Sixth Circuit has held that a complaint must “contain either direct or inferential
allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain a recovery under some
viable legal theory.” Schneid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434,

-4-

436 (6th Cir. 1988). Certainly, estimates of where and when an alleged wrongful
act occurred are material elements of any claim.
Further, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Whalen’s directive for
Plaintiff to state what each Defendant did to violate his rights and when and where
they did it is consistent with the holding in Robinson. See 2017 WL 1105060, at
*4. In Robinson, the court still required the plaintiff to amend his complaint and at
least provide an “estimate” of relevant time, date, and location information. See id.
Here, Magistrate Judge Whalen is not asking Plaintiff for exact precision, but
instead, to do his best to provide an estimate of where and when the alleged acts in
his Complaint occurred.
Hence, Magistrate Judge Whalen’s Order [#8] was not “clearly erroneous”
or “contrary to law.”
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge
Whalen’s Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for More Definite Statement [#8]
and OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection [#10].
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

September 17, 2018
s/Gershwin A. Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge
-5-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys
and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on September 17, 2018.
+

s/Teresa McGovern
Case Manager Generalist

-6-