Sedore v. Washington et al

Filing 64

ORDER denying 63 Motion for Case Management Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris. (KCas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SCOTT SEDORE,

Case No. 2:23-cv-10647
Jonathan J.C. Grey
United States District Judge

Plaintiff,
v.

Patricia T. Morris
United States Magistrate Judge

HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.

/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
A CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER (ECF No. 63)
This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a
prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) who
alleges that various MDOC officials violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment
and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (ECF No. 1, PageID.4–6, 9–11).
On January 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for a case management order (“CMO”)
to be issued. (ECF No. 63). He requests that a CMO be issued once the district
judge rules on the Report and Recommendation addressing the summary judgment
motions concerning his alleged failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF
No. 63, PageID.569). Plaintiff explains that the issuance of a case management order
will put in place the necessary deadlines for discovery and motion practice, and in
turn prevent unnecessary delays in the litigation. (Id.).
1

First, as the undersigned explained in the November 7, 2023 Order, there are
several motions pending concerning Plaintiff’s potential failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies. (ECF Nos. 17, 48; ECF No. 54, PageID.513 n. 1). A
finding that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies would result
in his complaint being dismissed as to those respective defendants. Martin v.
Caruso, No. 07-11734, 2008 WL 161678, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 15, 2008) (“As a
result, the Complaint should be dismissed, without prejudice, on the basis of
Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”).

The issuance of a

scheduling order at this point would not be conducive to the matter as the landscape
of the case may change following the ruling on the pending failure to exhaust
motions.
Second, the matter is not stayed and there is no order precluding Plaintiff from
conducting discovery or the parties from engaging in dispositive motion practice as
demonstrated by the docket. Thus, Plaintiff is free to engage in discovery and
motion practice. He is not required to wait for the issuance of a scheduling order to
do so.
Third, as the failure to exhaust motions have not been ruled upon Plaintiff’s
motion asking the Court to issue a CMO once they are ruled upon is premature. A
CMO will be issued in this matter when it is proper.

2

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for a case management order is DENIED. (ECF No.
63).
Review of this order is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P.
72, and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: February 7, 2024

S/ patricia t. morris
Patricia T. Morris
United States Magistrate Judge

3