Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Snelling v. Klee

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

December 22, 2016

THOMAS R. SNELLING, Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL KLEE, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND HOLDING IN ABEYANCE IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [ECF NO. 40]

          Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge.

         Thomas 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.

         Defendants 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.

         Defendants 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.

         In an 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.

         Accordingly, 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.

         Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) guides the Court in its review of Defendants' motion:

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.

         E.D. 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).

         The 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.

         Snelling 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.