Scott v. Groves et al

Filing 53

ORDER DENYING 40 Motion for Discovery; DENYING 41 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (MarW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 14-12123
Honorable John Corbett O’Meara
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

CHERYL GROVES, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY [R. 40] AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [R. 41]
Pro se plaintiff James Scott, currently a Michigan Department of
Corrections (“MDOC”) inmate, filed suit on May 22, 2014 against current
and former MDOC employees alleging Due Process and First Amendment
retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Five of the six defendants have
filed a motion for summary judgment [R. 16, 47], and the sixth defendant –
Raymond Booker – was just recently served. The Honorable John Corbett
O’Meara referred the case to this Court to resolve all pretrial matters
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Before the Court are two
motions filed by Scott: a motion for discovery [R. 40] and motion for
sanctions [R. 41]. For the following reasons, both motions are DENIED.
Scott asks the Court to sanction the Defendants’ attorney for failing to

file an “answer.” [R. 41]. This motion is without merit because the usual
procedural rules for answering complaints do not apply in § 1983 actions.
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 200 (2007). Specifically, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1), a defendant may waive the right to reply to an action
brought by a prisoner under § 1983, and such waiver does not constitute
an admission of the allegations pleaded in the complaint. Furthermore, in
such cases “[n]o relief shall be granted to the plaintiff unless a reply has
been filed” by the defendant. § 1997e(g)(1). However, the Court orders
that Booker must either answer the complaint or file a dispositive motion by
July 7, 2015.
In his motion for discovery, Scott asks the Court to postpone ruling on
the outstanding summary judgment motions until discovery is conducted.
[R. 40]. Scott sought the same relief in a previous motion for discovery [R.
21], but was denied by the Court:
The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for discovery pending
resolution of the summary judgment motion or upon further
order of the Court. “‘Trial courts have broad discretion and
inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary questions that
may dispose of the case are determined.’” Gettings v. Building
Laborers Local 310 Fringe Benefits Fund, 349 F.3d 300, 304
(6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Hahn v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708, 719
(6th Cir. 1999)). A stay of discovery is appropriately granted
where claims may be dismissed “‘based on legal
determinations that could not have been altered by any further
discovery.’” Gettings, 349 F.3d at 304 (quoting Muzquiz v.
W.A. Foote Mem. Hosp., Inc., 70 F.3d 422, 430 (6th Cir. 1995)).
2

[R. 22, PgID 193-94]. This Court agrees, but will deny summary judgment
of any claim if further factual development is warranted.
Scott’s motion for discovery [R. 40] and motion for sanctions [R. 41]
are DENIED. Additionally, Booker must either answer the complaint or file
a dispositive motion by July 7, 2015.
IT IS ORDERED.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: May 27, 2015
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which
provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district
judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1). Unless ordered otherwise by the Court,
the filing of an appeal to the District Judge does not stay the parties’
obligations in this Order. See E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.

3

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 May 27, 2015.
s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager

4