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.

Burley v. Williams

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

June 12, 2019

EDWARD DONALD BURLEY, Plaintiff
v.
MICHELLE WILLIAMS, RANDALL HAAS, GEORGE STEPHENSON, UNKNOWN JENKINS-GRANT, ARUS S. WILLIAMS, et al. Defendants.

          Avern Cohn Judge.

          ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD (DE 33), GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY (DE 28), AND CONDITIONALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DE 34)

          ANTHONY P. PATTI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         A. Background

         Edward Donald Burley is currently incarcerated at the MDOC's Oaks Correctional Facility (ECF), where he is serving a sentence imposed on February 22, 2006 in No. 04013795-FC-A (Genesee County).[1] On July 17, 2018, while incarcerated at Parnall Correctional Facility (SMT), Burley filed the instant lawsuit against Macomb Correctional Facility (MRF) Defendants: (a) Michelle Williams-Ward, an Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor (ARUS); (b) Warden Randall Haas; (c) Deputy Warden George Stephenson; (d) Regina Jenkins-Grant, a Resident Unit Manager (RUM); and, (e) seemingly, “S. Williams, ” or Carylon Williams. (DE 1 at 1-3, 7, 17; see also DE 16.)

         Plaintiff claims to have arrived at MRF on March 26, 2015. (DE 1 at 17, DE 27 at 24 ¶ 1.) Although the organization of his complaint makes it difficult to discern his claims, the allegations against Defendants at least involve: (a) Plaintiff's attempts to send out legal mail on April 10, 2015 and June 12, 2015; (b) his attempt to send Step III grievance appeals (MRF-15-06-01174-12d4 and MRF-15-07-012040-12I) on September 25, 2015; and, (c) contact and/or communication with prisoner Christopher Snow. (DE 1 at 6-7, 17; see also DE 25-34, 37.)

         On November 5, 2018, Judge Cohn referred this case to me for pretrial matters. As set forth in the Court's January 4, 2019 scheduling order: (1) dispositive motions based upon Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, exhaustion and/or qualified immunity were to be filed no later than Friday, March 8, 2019; (2) discovery is to be completed no later than Monday, July 8, 2019; and, (3) dispositive motions based upon Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 are to be filed on or before Thursday, August 8, 2019. (DE 18.)[2]

         B. Prior Dispositive Motion Practice

         On May 31, 2019, I entered a report, which recommended that the Court the Court deny Defendants' January 23, 2019 motion for partial summary judgment and deny Plaintiff's February 12, 2019 motion for a bench trial on the exhaustion dispute. (DE 38.) Thus, Defendants' dispositive motion is now before Judge Cohn.

         C. Pending Matters

         Currently pending before the Court are: (1) the MDOC Defendants' February 22, 2019 motion for a protective order staying discovery (DE 28), regarding which Plaintiff has filed “objections” (DE 30); (2) Plaintiff's April 18, 2019 “supplement pleading to complaint” (DE 33); and, (3) Plaintiff's April 23, 2019 motion to compel discovery (DE 34), regarding which the MDOC Defendants have filed a response (DE 35) and Plaintiff has filed a reply (DE 37).

         D. Discussion

         1. Supplementing the record with MDOC Operating Procedure 05.03.118

         As noted above, it appears the alleged events underlying the complaint occurred between April 10, 2015 and March 2016. (DE 1 at 6-7.) Among other things, Plaintiff mentions MDOC Policy Directives, including: (a) MDOC PD 03.02.130 (“Prisoner/Parolee Grievances”); (b) MDOC PD 05.03.116 (“Prisoners' Access to the Courts”); and, (c) MDOC PD 05.03.118 (“Prisoner Mail”). (DE 1 at 9, 21-22; see also DE 1 at 23, 33, 36, 39.) Plaintiff also attaches a copy of MDOC Director's Office Memorandum 2013-7 (Prisoner-to-Prisoner Mail). (DE 1 at 38-39.)

         Plaintiff's April 18, 2019 filing is titled “supplement pleading to complaint, ” and cites Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d). (DE 33 at 1-4.) This rule is properly invoked when a party seeks to “set[] out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented[, ]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d); however, it appears that Plaintiff simply seeks to supplement the record with MDOC Operating Procedure ...


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.