Kennedy v. Fields et al

Filing 56

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 51 , 52 Plaintiff's Post-Judgment Motions. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (AChu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MONTAZ KENNEDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMUEL FIELDS, ET AL.,

Case No. 23-cv-11949
Honorable Linda V. Parker

Defendants.
_____________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S POST-JUDGMENT
MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 51, 52)
On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed this pro se lawsuit against Defendants
alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants
then filed motions to dismiss. (ECF No. 11, 13.) The matter was referred to
Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr. for all pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636. (ECF No. 14.)
On May 14, 2024, Magistrate Judge Ivy issued a report and recommendation
(R&R), recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
state-law claims. (ECF No. 42.) Any objections by Plaintiff to the R&R were due
on May 31, 2024. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).

On June 3, Plaintiff filed a motion, which was signed and dated on the same
date, requesting a thirty-day extension of time to object to the R&R. (ECF No.
44.) In the motion, Plaintiff indicated that he received a copy of the R&R on May
18. He also discussed difficulties he had experienced obtaining his prescribed
medications for his Schizophrenia and Paranoia. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s narrative
reflected that he was taking the medications, he did not express that he lacked the
mental capacity to file his objections, and his filing reflected that he had the ability
to do so. The Court still granted him an extension of time until June 21, 2024.
(ECF No. 45.)
Instead of filing his objections by that deadline, Plaintiff filed a second
motion on June 21, seeking another thirty-day extension. (ECF No. 46.) Because
Plaintiff offered no explanation for why another extension was needed, the Court
denied the motion on June 26, 2024. (ECF No. 47.) As the Court reasoned, in
addition to failing to show good cause, Plaintiff had been afforded more than twice
the usual time allowed to file objections already, his filings reflected that he had
the wherewithal to prepare and submit any objections, and he could have spent the
allotted time preparing his objections rather than another motion for more time.
On June 26, the Court also adopted the R&R (ECF No. 47) and issued a judgment
(ECF No. 48).

On July 29, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal.
(ECF No. 49.) In the motion, Plaintiff indicated that he intended to file a motion
for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) after
the time to appeal expired and, therefore, he needed additional time to await the
Court’s ruling on that motion before appealing. The Court denied Plaintiff’s
motion without prejudice on July 31, 2024, finding that he had not established
excusable neglect, or even good cause, for the requested extension.1 (ECF No. 50.)
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that decision. (ECF No. 51.) In the
motion, Plaintiff indicates that he failed to inform the Court of his health issues
when he sought an extension of time to appeal. Plaintiff also contends that the
Court incorrectly calculated the deadline for the filing of his notice of appeal, as it
did not add the three additional days in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d).
Plaintiff also has filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(b), in which he challenges the Court’s order denying his
second request for an extension of time to object to Magistrate Judge Ivy’s R&R.

The Court also explained that a timely-filed Rule 60(b) motion would toll the
time for filing a notice of appeal. (See ECF No. 50 at PageID. 1181 (citing Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b), (e)).) For that reason, Plaintiff’s
intent to file a Rule 60(b) motion did not provide “good cause” for extending the
deadline to appeal.
1

Applicable Standards
Both of Plaintiff’s motions challenge non-final orders: an order denying an
extension of time to appeal and an order denying an extension of time to file
objections to the R&R. As such, they are governed by Eastern District of
Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h). See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h). Rule 7.1(h) provides that
“[m]otions for reconsideration of non-final orders are disfavored” and may only be
granted on three grounds: (1) a mistake of the court “based on the record and law
before the court at the time of its prior decision” if correcting the mistake would
change the outcome of the prior decision; (2) “[a]n intervening change in
controlling law warrants a different outcome”; or (3) “[n]ew facts warrant a
different outcome and the new facts could not have been discovered with
reasonable diligence before the prior decision.” Id.
The Denial of an Extension to Appeal
When Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, he
did not provide any reasons for why he could not comply with the existing
deadline. His current contention that he suffers “health issues that are causing him
difficulties in getting things done” does not convince the Court that a different
outcome was warranted. As this Court has expressed, Plaintiff’s filings throughout
these proceedings reflect that he has had the capacity to meet the required
deadlines. In any event, Plaintiff’s health issues do not appear to be facts that

“could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence[.]” Plaintiff’s second
contention, that the Court did not properly calculate the deadline for him to file his
notice, is incorrect.
Plaintiff claims the Court failed to add the three days in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 6(d) when determining the deadline for his notice of appeal. Even
if Rule 6(d) applied to appellate proceedings, 2 it does not apply to the calculation
of time for filing a notice of appeal. The additional time provided for in Rule 6(d),
or Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(c), applies only “[w]hen a party may or
must act within a specified time after being served . . ..” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d)
(emphasis added); see also Fed. R. App. P. 26(c) (“When a party may or must act
within a specified time after being served, and the paper is not served
electronically on the party or delivered to the party on the date stated in the proof
of service, 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule
26(a)) (emphasis added). The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide,
generally, that in a civil case, “the notice of appeal . . . must be filed with the
district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.”
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Moreover, even if the Court

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure have their own provisions for
computing time. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(c).
2

miscalculated Plaintiff’s deadline, this did not impact its decision to deny his
requested extension.
The Denial of Another Extension to File Objections
Plaintiff also does not demonstrate a mistake by the Court or new facts
warranting a different decision with respect to his request for more time to file
objections to the R&R. First, Plaintiff argues that prejudice to Defendants had to
be found before denying his motion. While prejudice to the nonmoving party may
be a relevant factor in deciding whether to grant an extension, Plaintiff still had to
establish “good cause” to warrant relief. See United States v. Oakland Physicians
Med. Ctr., LLC, 44 F4th 565, 568 (6th Cir. 2022) (explaining that “[i]f a plaintiff
demonstrates good cause” then the court considers several factors, including
prejudice, when exercising its discretion as to whether or not to grant relief); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Plaintiff did not demonstrate “good cause” for the
reasons discussed in the Court’s June 26, 2024 decision. (See ECF No. 47.)
Plaintiff also argues a lack of mental capacity to file his objections. As
discussed above, however, and as discussed in the Court’s previous decisions,
Plaintiff’s many filings reflect that he had the capacity to timely object.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the Court finds no error in its previous decisions
denying Plaintiff extensions of time to file objections to the magistrate judge’s
R&R or a notice of appeal.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 51)
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for relief from
judgment (ECF No. 52) is DENIED.
Date: March 7, 2025

s/LINDA V. PARKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE