Horacek #218347 v. Heyns et al

Filing 221

ORDER VACATING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 203 ; dismissing 198 ; dismissing 188 and 193 ; signed by District Judge Paul L. Maloney; this document appears in the following associated cases: 2:13-cv-00280-PLM-MV, 2:15-cv-00038-PLM-MV (Judge Paul L. Maloney, cmc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
DANIEL HORACEK, #218347,
Plaintiff,
-VHEIDI WASHINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:13-cv-280
No. 2:15-cv-38
HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY

ORDER
The above-captioned cases are civil rights actions brought by state prisoner Plaintiff
Daniel Horacek. The core of Horacek’s lawsuit is that the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) has violated his rights under the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act,1 the First Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment Equal
Protection Clause by failing to provide a meal plan that complies with his religion: Horacek
is an Orthodox Jew.
These cases have been stayed for nearly two years pending resolution of Ackerman

v. Washington, Case No. 4:13-cv-14137, filed in the United States District Court Eastern
District of Michigan Southern Division (see ECF No. 212).2 The Ackerman case appears to
have resolved some issues that are related to the issues presented by Horacek. On the Court’s
recent investigation, it appears that the final motions in the Ackerman case were resolved on
March 3, 2021. Accordingly, the Court will lift the stay here and handle the pending motions.

1
2

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, et seq.
Unless otherwise noted, cites to the record refer to the docket numbers in the lead case, Case No. 2:13-cv-280.

At the outset, the Court notes that the factual and legal landscape has shifted since
Horacek filed his first lawsuit in 2013. The Ackerman decision is the most recent example,
but MDOC policies have also changed. Given the lengthy stay, the parties have not had the
opportunity to address these changes, and the Court is not inclined to address the merits of
this case without the parties’ view of the relevant circumstances.
With that in mind, the Court first considers Horacek’s objection to a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by Magistrate Judge Maarten Vermaat (R&R ECF No.
203; Objection ECF No. 205). With respect to a dispositive issue, a magistrate judge issues
a report and recommendation, rather than an order. After being served with an R&R issued
by a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed
findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Normally, a
district court judge reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been
filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
However, in this case, the Court notes that the issue considered by the R&R—
Horacek’s request for kosher meals during the April 19, 2019 Passover holiday—has long
been moot, which Horacek recognizes in his objection to the R&R (see ECF No. 205 at
PageID.1474). Given the length of time that has passed, the Court will vacate the R&R and
instead dismiss Horacek’s motion for a temporary restraining order as moot.
The Court also acknowledges that there are two outstanding motions for summary
judgment (ECF Nos. 188, 193). These motions were filed in late 2018 and early 2019, so
they necessarily do not take account of the Ackerman case and any impact it may have on
Horacek’s situation. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss these motions without prejudice.
2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the stay (ECF No. 212) is LIFTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the April 4, 2019 Report & Recommendation
(ECF No. 203) is VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order
(ECF No. 198) is DISMISSED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos.
188, 193) are DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 30, 2021

/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge

3