Lentz v. MDOC et al

Filing 93

ORDER denying Planitiffs' 86 Motion to Compel; 87 Motion to Compel; and 88 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman. (DJen)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GARY LENTZ,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:24-cv-10198
District Judge Terrence G. Berg
Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman

v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

_________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
(ECF Nos. 86, 87, 88)
I.

Introduction

This is a prisoner civil rights case. Plaintiff Gary Lentz (Lentz), proceeding
pro se, filed a complaint naming, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint naming the
following as defendants: Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), Heidi
Washington (Washington), Aleksandra Wilanowski (Wilanoski), Scott Webster
(Webster), Joshua Walendzik (Walendzik), Lisa Bailey (Bailey), Jeanine Gauss
(Gauss), Valenzik, Joni Maclean (Maclean), Colleen Edgington (Edgington), Jamie
Rusch (Rusch), Kim Farris (Farris), Bridget Spencer (Spencer), Sandra Brunson
(Brunson), Ivan Hernandez (Hernandez), Gregor Cohill (Cohill), Adam Caporuscio
(Caporuscio), Matthew Nguyen (Nguyen), Evan Sanders (Sanders), Vincent
1

Amalfitano (Amalfitano), Zachary Miller (Miller), Michael White (White), Harold
Obiakor (Obiakor), and Wellpath.1 (ECF No. 1). Lentz asserts federal claims
under § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as state law claims for
assault and battery, gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
and medical malpractice. In broad terms, Lentz claims that he is not receiving
proper treatment for his mental health condition and has been given medication
which causes an allergic reaction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), all pretrial matters
have been recently referred to the undersigned. (ECF No. 29)
The following motions are pending:
? Wellpath, Wilanowski, Farris, and Obiakor (the “Wellpath Defendants”)
motion to dismiss and for summary judgment (ECF No. 60);
? Edgington and Walendzik’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 70);
? Brunson’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 74); and
? Lentz’s motions to compel discovery (ECF Nos. 86, 87, 88).
Lentz’s motions to compel, filed on November 1, 2024, are against defendants
Wilanowski, Farris, and Obiakor (ECF No. 86), Amalfitano and Spencer (ECF No.
87), and Gauss (ECF No. 88).
As will be explained, Lentz’s motion to compel are premature at this time in
the case. Accordingly, the motions will be DENIED.
1

Names are spelled as they appear in defendants’ filings. Proceedings against
Wellpath have been stayed due to its filing for bankruptcy. (ECF No. 92).
2

II.

Background

Lentz’s complaint was filed on January 25, 2024. (ECF No. 1). Service is
ongoing as to two defendants—Valenzik and Bailey—but the rest have been
served and have filed pending motions to dismiss or for summary judgment. No
defendants have answered the complaint, as they are not required to do so under 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1).
Lentz says in his motions to compel that Wilanowski, Obiakor, Farris, and
Gauss have failed to respond to his discovery requests, and that Amalfitano and
Spencer’s “responses consisted of stonewalling the pro se prisoner litigant’s
requests with equivocations.” (ECF No. 87, PageID.746) (emphasis in original).
Amalfitano and Spencer filed a response, asserting that their discovery responses
were appropriate and that Lentz has failed to highlight a legal issue with them.
(ECF No. 90). Gauss also filed a response, stating that her discovery response was
sent within the time for doing so and that Lentz’s motion as to her is moot. (ECF
No. 89). Wilanowski, Obiakor, and Farris have not responded to Lentz’s motion to
compel.
III.

Discussion

Although the parties have not raised this issue, a scheduling order has yet to
be entered in this case. This is because, as noted above, there are pending
dispositive motions from every defendant that has been served, and two defendants
3

on which service is outstanding. A scheduling order will not be entered until
defendants’ motions are resolved, if any claims remain.
In the absence of a scheduling order, Lentz’s discovery requests are
premature, notwithstanding the responses he has already received. See, e.g.,
Brown v. Snyder, No. 19-11325, 2020 WL 6342669, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 29,
2020) (“In pro se prisoner civil litigation, such as this case, discovery typically
commences upon issuance of a scheduling order setting discovery and dispositive
motion deadlines.”); Annabel v. Fronczak, No. 2:23-CV-12346, 2024 WL
4245400, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 19, 2024), aff’d, 2024 WL 4433064 (E.D. Mich.
Oct. 7, 2024) (same). If any claims remain after defendants’ motions are resolved,
the Court will issue a scheduling order. At that time, Lentz may proceed to send
discovery requests to defendants and may renew his motions to compel if they are
denied or not responded to within the appropriate timeframe.
IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Lentz’s motions to compel (ECF Nos. 86, 87,
88) are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 22, 2024
Detroit, Michigan

s/Kimberly G. Altman
KIMBERLY G. ALTMAN
United States Magistrate Judge

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on November 22, 2024.
s/Dru Jennings
DRU JENNINGS
Case Manager

5