UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JOEL CARTER, 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 14-CV-13234 

 

v. Honorable Patrick J. Duggan 

KENDALL BYRD, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

_________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

TEXT-ONLY ORDER ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 6, 2015, and RETURNING 

THE MATTER TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER 

PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION AND ORDER 

 Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff Joel Carter, a Michigan Department of 

Corrections prisoner, filed this civil rights lawsuit on August 20, 2014 against three 

prison officials alleging that he was retaliated against for engaging in activity 

protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court 

referred all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris. 

 One of the three Defendants – Randall Haas – filed a motion for summary 

judgment on December 8, 2014, arguing that Plaintiff cannot satisfy one of the 

2:14-cv-13234-PJD-PTM Doc # 27 Filed 03/20/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 188
2 

elements of his First Amendment claim against Defendant Haas and, in any event, 

Defendant Haas is entitled to qualified immunity.1

 On January 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion asking the Court to defer ruling 

on Defendant Haas’s summary judgment motion pending the completion of 

discovery. Plaintiff brings his motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

56(d), which allows courts to, among other things, “defer considering” a motion 

for summary judgment “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for 

specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.” In his 

motion, Plaintiff explains what evidence he seeks to obtain through discovery and 

why that evidence is necessary to defeat Defendant Haas’s summary judgment 

motion. Plaintiff states that the evidence that he hopes to obtain through discovery 

will show that the purported facts contained in Defendant Haas’s affidavit, filed in 

support of his summary judgment motion, are false. Plaintiff attaches an affidavit 

to his motion, as required by Rule 56(d). 

 About one month later, on February 6, 2015, Defendant Haas filed a motion 

to stay discovery arguing, among other things, that discovery should be stayed 

until his motion for summary judgment is resolved. Defendant Haas points out 

that the motion, if granted, would end the lawsuit against him and eliminate the 

need for discovery. 

 

1

 At the time Defendant Haas filed his motion for summary judgment, the other 

two Defendants had not yet been served. 

2:14-cv-13234-PJD-PTM Doc # 27 Filed 03/20/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 189
3 

 On February 6, 2015, Magistrate Judge Morris issued a “text-only order” 

denying both Plaintiff’s motion to defer ruling on Defendant Haas’s summary 

judgment motion pending discovery and Defendant Haas’s motion to stay 

discovery pending resolution of his summary judgment motion. The order 

provides no analysis of the motions and does not include any explanation as to why 

they were denied. 

Both Plaintiff and Defendant Haas have filed objections to the Magistrate 

Judge’s text-only order. Plaintiff continues to argue that discovery is necessary to 

enable him to properly respond to Defendant Haas’s summary judgment motion, 

and Defendant Haas continues to argue that discovery should be stayed pending 

resolution of his motion for summary judgment. 

 The Court must modify or set aside Magistrate Judge Morris’s text-only 

order if it is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The 

Court is unable to rule on the propriety of the order, however, because the order is 

entirely unexplained. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s text-only order dated 

February 6, 2015 denying the two motions discussed above is SET ASIDE, and 

the matter is RETURNED to Magistrate Judge Morris to reconsider the motions 

and provide an explanation of her rulings. 

SO ORDERED. 

2:14-cv-13234-PJD-PTM Doc # 27 Filed 03/20/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 190
4 

Dated: March 20, 2015 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to: 

Joel Carter 

Kevin R. Himebaugh, Esq. 

2:14-cv-13234-PJD-PTM Doc # 27 Filed 03/20/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 191