1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

RICKY BILLS, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11414 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

DANIEL HEYNS et. al. 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) WITHDRAWING REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE, 

(2) CONDITIONALLY APPOINTING COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF, (3) 

TERMINATING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF ## 28, 32, 

41) AND PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION (ECF #52) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND (4) 

STAYING ACTION PENDING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

 In this prisoner civil rights action, state prisoner Ricky Bills (“Bills”) alleges 

that numerous current and former employees of the Michigan Department of 

Corrections (the “MDOC”) misappropriated or misapplied funds that were deposited 

into his prison bank account. (See Amended Complaint, ECF #18.) Bills’ primary 

claim is that the Defendants violated an October 7, 2008, written order entered by 

the Ingraham County Circuit Court (the “State Court Order”). (See ECF #53 at 22, 

Pg. ID 520.) The State Court Order required the MDOC to retain funds deposited 

on Bills’ behalf in order to pay a filing fee that Bills owed. (See id.) Bills says that 

the Defendants have not complied with the order and that, as a result, he has an 

2:15-cv-11414-MFL-DRG Doc # 56 Filed 02/27/17 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 541
2

outstanding balance that prevents him from filing documents in the state court. (See 

generally Am. Compl.) 

 The Defendants have each moved to dismiss Bills’ claims (the “Motions”). 

(See ECF ## 28, 32, and 41.) On January 4, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge 

issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Court grant 

the Motions and dismiss Bills’ claims with prejudice (the “R&R”). (See ECF #52.) 

Bills filed timely objections to the R&R on January 24, 2017 (the “Objections”).1

(See ECF #53.) 

 The Court is not comfortable that dismissal of the Amended Complaint is 

warranted at this time. The Court believes that the most efficient and appropriate 

course of action is to (1) withdraw the order of reference to the Magistrate Judge 

(ECF #25), (2) terminate the Motions and the Objections (ECF ## 28, 32, 41, and 

52) without prejudice, (3) refer this action to the Court’s Pro Bono Committee and 

conditionally appoint counsel for Bills providing that the committee is successful in 

enlisting pro bono counsel on Bills’ behalf, and (4) stay this action pending the 

appointment of counsel. If the Pro Bono Committee is unsuccessful in enlisting 

counsel, counsel will not be appointed and Bills will continue to proceed pro se or 

 

1

 Bills identified this filing as a “Motion for Reconsideration.” (See ECF #53.) On 

February 2, 2017, the Court entered a written Order in which it construed Bills’ 

“motion” as objections to the R&R. (See ECF #54.) 

2:15-cv-11414-MFL-DRG Doc # 56 Filed 02/27/17 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 542
3 

retain counsel at his own expense. Upon the appointment of pro bono counsel, the 

Court will schedule a telephonic status conference with all counsel to discuss how 

this action should proceed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: February 27, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on February 27, 2017, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:15-cv-11414-MFL-DRG Doc # 56 Filed 02/27/17 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 543