UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

ARELIOUS RAY REED,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:08-cv-14836

THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT,

Defendant.

/

NOTICE OF INTENDED DENIAL OF “MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”

Plaintiff initiated this action in forma pauperis on November 18, 2008, when he

filed a pro se complaint alleging that his constitutional rights had been violated by

repeated postponements of his criminal trial proceedings in the Third Judicial Circuit

Court of Michigan. On November 25, 2008, the court summarily dismissed this case

pursuant to the screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Specifically, the

court, construing Plaintiff’s complaint as an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, found

that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted because

Defendant is not a “person” within the meaning of that statute. (See Order Summ.

Dismissal 2, Dkt. # 4.) 

The court heard nothing further from Plaintiff until October 31, 2011, when he

filed a “Motion for Summary Judgment.” Though the court cannot readily ascertain the

legal basis for Plaintiff’s motion, he argues that he is entitled to judgment against

Defendant in the amount of $14,107,500.00 because he has proof of a “linked

transaction” that Defendant “did not contest.” This proof seems to be a number of

photocopied documents, filed with Plaintiff’s motion, that appear to evince a Uniform

2:08-cv-14836-RHC-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 11/30/11 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 40
1

The court states no view about the likelihood of success of any such attempt to

rekindle Plaintiff’s case.

2

Commercial Code filing by Plaintiff with the Michigan Department of State of a

$13,500,000 invoice to Defendant. 

The court can discern no grounds for awarding Plaintiff the relief he requests. 

First and foremost, this case is closed and has been for three years. There is no

provision under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 which allows the court to grant

summary judgment on a closed case. Yet, Plaintiff’s current motion makes no mention

of the dismissal of the complaint—not even to challenge the propriety of that

dismissal1

—but simply proceeds as if the case was never dismissed. Morever, even if

the court could entertain the motion, Plaintiff has failed to present any coherent legal

argument which would persuade the court that summary judgment was substantively

appropriate. For these reasons, 

THE COURT HEREBY GIVES NOTICE that it intends to deny Plaintiff’s “Motion

for Summary Judgment” [Dkt. # 5]. 

However, the court will not act until December 19, 2011, and will consider any

additional information or explanation Plaintiff may chose to file before that date if he

wishes to persuade the court that some other course or further consideration of his

position is appropriate.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 30, 2011

2:08-cv-14836-RHC-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 11/30/11 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 41
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\08-14836.REED.ShowCauseDenSummJ.set.3.wpd

3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, November 30, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:08-cv-14836-RHC-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 11/30/11 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 42