United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
THOMAS R. SNELLING, Plaintiff,
PAUL KLEE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND HOLDING IN ABEYANCE IN
PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [ECF NO.
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge.
Snelling (“Snelling”) is incarcerated in the
Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). He
filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pro se civil rights
action against various MDOC employees named as Defendants. He
alleges constitutional violations.
filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Snelling
did not abide by the MDOC grievance procedures. They say this
failure warrants dismissal of his lawsuit, and that the
Eleventh Amendment bars Snelling's official capacity
claims. On November 1, 2016, the Court entered its Order
Denying in Part and Granting in Part Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment.
now ask the Court to reconsider that part of its Order which
held Snelling properly exhausted administrative remedies for
grievances arising between April 17, 2015 and April 30, 2015.
Specifically, Defendants say the following were palpable
defects in the Court's Order:
1. This Court erred in concluding there was a genuine issue
of material fact as to the contents of ARF-1504-0952-28a
(“ARD 0952”) because Snelling failed to properly
pursue that grievance through Step III;
2. This Court erred in concluding that genuine issues of
material act existed as to whether Snelling properly
exhausted ARF-1504-0931-28f (“ARF-0931”),
ARF-1504-0950-27a (“ARF-0950”), and
ARF-1505-1046-28f (ARF -1046”), where Snelling failed
to follow the modified grievance process or to timely appeal
those grievances; and
3. Even assuming that genuine issues of material fact existed
as to whether Snelling exhausted his grievances, the Court
should dismiss the defendants not named in the grievances.
order entered earlier today [Doc. 46], the Court dismissed
all Defendants sua sponte except Braman and Newsome.
That order disposes of the Defendants' third claimed
error and any error with respect to ARF-1046, since it does
not refer to Braman and Newsome.
the Court needs only to consider Defendants' request for
reconsideration with respect to ARF-0931, ARF-0950 and
ARF-0952, although it is unclear that ARF-0952 involves
Braman and Newsome.
Rule 7.1(h)(3) guides the Court in its review of
Generally, and without restricting the court's
discretion, the court will not grant motions for ...
reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled
upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable
defect by which the court and the parties and other persons
entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also
show that correcting the defect will result in a different
disposition of the case.
Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Palpable defects are those which are
“obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or
plain.” Mich. Dep't of Treasury v.
Michalec, 181 F.Supp.2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
Court concludes that it did err in finding that genuine
issues of material fact exist as to whether Snelling properly
exhausted ARF-0931 and ARF-0950. The Court reserves judgment
with respect to ARF-0952.
was required to properly exhaust administrative remedies. See
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006).
“Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an
agency's deadlines and other critical procedural
rules.” Id. 548 U.S. at 90-91. Snelling did
not comply ...