UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MORRIS WEATHERSPOON,

#471817,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-12756

Plaintiff,

DISTRICT JUDGE LAURIE J. MICHELSON

v.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN

DINSA, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/ 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C.

§1983, has filed two motions for stay of proceedings [Doc. #106 and #109]. In the first [Doc.

#106], he seeks a stay based on his allegation that because he was placed in administrative

segregation, he is unable to respond to Defendant Jindell’s motion for summary judgment. In the

second [Doc. #109], he seeks a stay so that he can exhaust his administrative remedies. Both

motions are DENIED.

As to Doc. #106, I understand that prisoners face certain hurdles in litigating their cases,

whether they are in administrative segregation or not, but the ordinary incidents of prison life are

not a sufficient basis to order a stay of proceedings. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion in Doc. #106 is

DENIED. However, I will grant him a generous extension of time to file his response to

Defendant Jindell’s summary judgment motion. Plaintiff’s response will be filed on or before

NOVEMBER 22, 2016.

2:14-cv-12756-LJM-RSW Doc # 111 Filed 09/27/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 980
As to Doc. #109, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a),

requires exhaustion of administrative remedies before suit is filed in federal court. See Thomas v.

Woolum, 337 F.3d 720, 726 (6 Cir. 2003)(“An inmate who has not pursued available th

administrative remedies may not yet proceed in federal court.”). In Anderson v. Prisoner Health

Services, 2011 WL 2143514, *3 (E.D. Mich. 2011), the Court denied a motion to hold the case in

abeyance pending the plaintiff’s completion of exhaustion, holding:

“Plaintiff must exhaust all available administrative remedies prior to bringing his

claim rather than during the adjudication of his claim. The Plaintiff’s Motion to

Hold 1883 Petition in Abeyance is therefore denied and the Complaint shall be

dismissed without prejudice.”

Likewise here, Plaintiff is not entitled to have his case held in abeyance while he exhausts

his administrative remedies. The proper course of action, should he have unexhausted claims, is

for Plaintiff to first complete his administrative remedies. If Defendant Jindal’s summary

judgment motion [Doc. #100] were to be granted on grounds of non-exhaustion, the result would

be a dismissal without prejudice. Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of America, 380 F.3d 989, 994

(6th Cir.2006) (citing Knuckles El v. Toombs, 215 F.3d 640 (6th Cir.2000).

Plaintiff’s motions to stay [Doc. #106 and Doc. #109] are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Date: September 27, 2016

2:14-cv-12756-LJM-RSW Doc # 111 Filed 09/27/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 981
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on

September 27, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/Carolyn M. Ciesla 

Case Manager to the 

Honorable R. Steven Whalen

2:14-cv-12756-LJM-RSW Doc # 111 Filed 09/27/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 982