Cedric James Simpson v. Randee Rewerts, Daryl Hoffman, and Unknown Party

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses a pro se prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Michigan Department of Corrections employees for allegedly delaying his release after a state court vacated his conviction and sentence. The magistrate judge recommends denying the plaintiff’s motions concerning discovery, a stay, and amendment of the complaint. The magistrate judge further recommends granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Holdings

1. Because plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed this § 1983 action, the Prison Litigation Reform Act required him to exhaust available MDOC administrative remedies before bringing the action.
2. The record did not show that plaintiff properly exhausted any grievance against the defendants before filing suit; therefore, defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the exhaustion issue.
3. Plaintiff was not entitled to deferment, denial, or a stay of the summary-judgment motion under Rule 56(d) because his request was untimely and failed to identify specific discovery needed to oppose the exhaustion motion.
4. Plaintiff could not amend his complaint as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1)(A) because the motion was filed outside the applicable period and after defendants had filed a summary-judgment motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff was required to exhaust available MDOC administrative remedies before pursuing his § 1983 claims because he was incarcerated when he filed the action.
2. Whether plaintiff satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) by identifying specific discovery necessary to oppose defendants' exhaustion-based summary-judgment motion.
3. Whether plaintiff was entitled to an extension of discovery.
4. Whether plaintiff could amend his complaint as a matter of course under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A) after defendants filed a summary-judgment motion and after the applicable amendment period had expired.
5. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment because the record showed that plaintiff had not properly exhausted a grievance against any defendant.

Disposition

other