Texas Samuel Barnett v. Harold Obiakor

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan strikes Plaintiff Texas Samuel Barnett’s letter because letters to the court are neither pleadings nor motions. The court explains that Defendant Harold Obiakor’s motion was a timely Rule 56 motion for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, rather than a Rules 8 or 12 pleading challenge. The court extends Barnett’s response deadline to January 21, 2026, and continues the stay of discovery pending resolution of the exhaustion-based motion.

Holdings

1. The court struck plaintiff's letter because letters to the court are neither pleadings nor motions under the court's practice guidelines.
2. The Rule 56 motion for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies was not untimely under the earlier deadline for motions attacking the adequacy of the pleadings under Rules 8 and 12.
3. The court extended plaintiff's deadline to respond to the summary judgment motion to January 21, 2026, and extended the stay of discovery pending resolution of the exhaustion-based motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's letter and attached documents were a proper filing or should be stricken.
2. Whether defendant's Rule 56 motion for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies was untimely under the court's deadline for motions attacking the pleadings under Rules 8 and 12.
3. Whether the deadline for plaintiff to respond to the summary judgment motion and the stay of discovery should be extended.

Disposition

other