Arnold et al v. Heyns et al

Filing 79

OPINION and ORDER Rejecting Plaintiff's 76 Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order Granting Plaintiff's 69 Motion for Continuance and to Reopen Discovery. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (SBur)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL ARNOLD,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 13-14137
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
DANIEL H. HEYNS, MICHAEL
MARTIN, and BRAD PURVIS,
Defendants.
________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER REJECTING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND TO REOPEN DISCOVERY
Introduction
On September 27, 2013, Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendants
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff is suing Defendants in their official
capacities as MDOC’s Director, Special Activities Coordinator, and Food Service
Director.2 (See ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 1-2.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants are violating his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and
Two other individuals initially were named as Plaintiffs; however, they
withdrew from this action on March 11, 2015. (ECF No. 52.)
2
When the lawsuit was filed, MDOC’s Director was Daniel H. Heyns, its
Special Activities Coordinator was Michael Martin, and its Food Service Director
was Brad Purvis. According to Defendants, these individuals no longer serve in
those capacities. (See ECF No. 65 at Pg ID 998 n.2.)
1

the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by implementing a
Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) policy directive that replaces all
previously offered religious menus with a vegan diet.3 Plaintiff is an Orthodox Jew
incarcerated in an MDOC prison facility. The matter has been referred to
Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub for all pretrial matters. (ECF No. 11.)
Background
On August 4, 2015, Magistrate Judge Majzoub entered a scheduling order
establishing inter alia a November 20, 2015 deadline for discovery and a
December 18, 2015 deadline for the filing of dispositive motions. (ECF No. 62.)
Before the dispositive motion deadline, Defendants filed a motion seeking the
Court’s permission to file a third dispositive motion, as leave is required under
Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(b)(2). On December 18, 2015, after
Magistrate Judge Majzoub granted Defendants’ motion, Defendants filed a
summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 65.)
On January 8, 2016, attorneys Michael J. Steinberg and Patricia L. Selby
entered their appearances on behalf of Plaintiff, who had been attempting to obtain
representation throughout this litigation. (ECF No. 66.) Their appearances,
In an Opinion and Order issued June 24, 2014, this Court adopted
Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s recommendation to sua sponte dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim. (ECF No. 28.)
3

2

however, were conditioned on the Court’s grant of a continuance to respond to
Defendants’ summary judgment motion and the re-opening of discovery, which
Plaintiff sought in a simultaneously filed motion. (ECF Nos. 66, 69.) Defendants
opposed Plaintiff’s request in a response brief filed January 25, 2016. (ECF No.
70.) On April 28, 2106, Magistrate Judge Majzoub held a hearing with respect to
Plaintiff’s motion.
At the hearing, Magistrate Judge Majzoub asked Plaintiff’s counsel what
information Plaintiff hoped to obtain through additional discovery, what additional
requests would be made, and how much additional time Plaintiff needed to conduct
discovery. (See ECF No. 75 at Pg ID 1105.) Based on the response provided by
Plaintiff’s counsel, Magistrate Judge Majzoub concluded that the scope of
Plaintiff’s claim was being significantly broadened. In fact, Plaintiff’s attorneys
indicated at the hearing that they intended to file a motion to amend Plaintiff’s
Complaint to add additional parties and possibly additional claims. (Id. at Pg ID
1106.) Plaintiff informs the Court that these amendments have been necessitated
by Plaintiff’s transfer to a new MDOC facility and the change in vendors providing
contract food services for MDOC during the pendency of this litigation. (See ECF
No. 76 at Pg ID 1116.)

3

On April 29, 2016, Magistrate Judge Majzoub entered an order granting
Plaintiff’s motion for continuance and to reopen discovery. However, Magistrate
Judge Majzoub gave Plaintiff less time than requested to engage in additional
discovery, concluding that discovery should be limited to the claims and
defendants identified in the Complaint now pending. (Id.) Specifically, although
Plaintiff’s counsel requested an additional six months to complete discovery,
Magistrate Judge Majzoub set an August 19, 2016 discovery deadline. (Id. at Pg
ID 1106.) Further, Magistrate Judge Majzoub “caution[ed] Plaintiff that discovery
in this matter is limited to the claims and defendants currently included in this
matter; that is, discovery into additional defendants or claims would be outside the
scope contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Id.)
Plaintiff filed an appeal of this order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) on
May 13, 2016. (ECF No. 76.) Plaintiff contends that Magistrate Judge Majzoub
erred in limiting the scope of discovery “to the claims and defendants currently
included in this matter” as it “will prevent appropriate discovery even after
amending his complaint.” (Id. at Pg ID 1116.) Plaintiff states that “[t]his
limitation suggests that if and when Plaintiff files a motion for an amended
complaint, any newly named defendants or new claims raised would be outside
permitted discovery.” (Id. at Pg ID 1117.) Plaintiff argues that “[t]his is contrary
4

to longstanding case law supporting a broad scope of discovery, and permitting
reversal of discovery orders if they cause substantial prejudice.” (Id. at Pg ID
1117-18.)
Standard of Review
When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive decision, the
reviewing court must affirm the magistrate judge’s ruling unless the objecting
party demonstrates that it is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The “clearly erroneous” standard does not
empower a reviewing court to reverse a magistrate judge’s finding because it
would have decided the matter differently. See, e.g., Anderson v. Bessemer City,
N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985). Instead, the “clearly erroneous” standard is
met when despite the existence of evidence to support the finding, the court, upon
reviewing the record in its entirety, “is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum
Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
Analysis
Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s decision is
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. At this stage of the litigation, Plaintiff has not
moved to file an amended complaint. Thus, it was proper for Magistrate Judge
5

Majzoub to limit discovery to the claims and defendants currently included in this
action. Notably, however, Plaintiff has sued Defendants in their official capacities
as MDOC employees. (See ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 1-2.) The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provide for the “automatic[] substitute[ion]” of an officer’s successor
when the officer inter alia “ceases to hold office while the action is pending.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 25(d). Rule 25(d) provides that “[l]ater proceedings should be in the
substituted party’s name, but any misnomer not affecting the parties’ substantial
rights must be disregarded. The court may order substitution at any time, but the
absence of such an order does not affect the substitution.” Id. (emphasis added).
As such, the current MDOC Director, Special Activities Coordinator, and Food
Service Director automatically became parties to this action when the currently
named defendants ceased holding their identified positions within MDOC.
It is not apparent to this Court that Magistrate Judge Majzoub ruled or
indicated more specifically what discovery Plaintiff could or could not do. In other
words, it is not evident to this Court that the magistrate judge precluded Plaintiff
from conducting discovery with respect to the manner in which food is prepared
and served within MDOC’s facilities.4 Nor does the April 29, 2016 order reflect

For that reason, the issue of whether Plaintiff’s remaining claims are as
limited in scope as Defendant maintains in their response to Plaintiff’s objections
(Cont’d . . .)
6
4

that Magistrate Judge Majzoub limited the scope of discovery set forth in Rule 26
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
[T]he scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s
claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering
the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the
parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of
discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Plaintiff also objects to Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s unwillingness to grant
him the full sixth months he requested to complete additional discovery. This
Court cannot conclude that the magistrate judge’s decision was clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. Nevertheless, in light of Plaintiff finally securing counsel, the
discovery period should be extended further if Plaintiffs’ attorneys find themselves
unable to complete the discovery needed to prosecute Plaintiffs’ claims within the
four-month deadline given.
Accordingly,

does not appear to be ripe for this Court to resolve. To the extent a specific dispute
arises between the parties during the extended discovery period, Magistrate Judge
Majzoub will need to address it first, as the lawsuit has been referred to her for all
pretrial matters.
7

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections to Order Granting Plaintiff’s
Motion for Continuance and to Reopen Discovery are DENIED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 16, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, June 16, 2016, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ Shawna Burns on behalf of Richard Loury
Case Manager

8