UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM HELMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN GUEST, KATHLEEN SOLOMON,

OSCODA COUNTY, KEVIN GRACE,

DAVE STENZEL, ED POKRZYWNICKI,

and RONALD NIGHTINGALE

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 09-11697

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

OPINION AND ORDER

 At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on July 14, 2011.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

On May 4, 2009, William Helmer (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently incarcerated

at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan, filed this pro se civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has referred this matter to Magistrate

Judge Mona K. Majzoub for all pretrial proceedings. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s

objections to Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s orders denying his motion to amend his

Complaint and striking his Amended Complaint from the record. For the reasons stated

below, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s objections.

I. Procedural Background

2:09-cv-11697-PJD-MKM Doc # 144 Filed 07/14/11 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 1437
2

Plaintiff’s original Complaint named only Brian Guest and Kathleen Solomon as

Defendants. On May 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his Complaint, seeking to

add Defendants Grace, Stenzel, Pokrzywnicki and Nightingale. Magistrate Judge

Majzoub granted this motion in part in an order dated September 7, 2010.

On September 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed a second motion to amend his Complaint, this

time seeking to add claims against District Court Judge Allen C. Yenior, court reporter

Dawn Freehling, and Beverly Kitchen. Magistrate Judge Majzoub denied Plaintiff’s

motion in an order dated November 16, 2010, concluding that Plaintiff was aware of his

potential claims against these defendants at the time he filed his original Complaint, yet

had provided no reason for failing to include these defendants in either his Complaint or

his first Amended Complaint. Magistrate Judge Majzoub also concluded that the claims

against Judge Yenior and Freehling were futile because these defendants were entitled to

absolute or qualified immunity. Magistrate Judge Majzoub noted that all of the defendants

had filed appearances and dispositive motions. Finally, Magistrate Judge Majzoub noted

that Plaintiff had been granted multiple extensions of time and leave to file his first

Amended Complaint. Magistrate Judge Majzoub concluded that the interests of justice

would not be further served by delaying resolution of this case, and therefore denied

Plaintiff’s motion to file a second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff filed objections dated November 22, 2010, arguing that the Court should

grant him leave to amend his Complaint. On May 9, 2011, Magistrate Judge Majzoub

issued an order striking Plaintiff’s second Amended Complaint from the record. See Dkt.

#139. Plaintiff responded by refiling his objections.

2:09-cv-11697-PJD-MKM Doc # 144 Filed 07/14/11 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 1438
3

II. Discussion

Where a party objects to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order, the Court sets

aside the order if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A

decision is “clearly erroneous” where the reviewing court “is left with the definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum

Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S. Ct. 525, 542 (1948).

Plaintiff first objects to Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s conclusion that Judge Yenior is

entitled to judicial immunity. “‘Judicial immunity’ is shorthand for the doctrine of

absolute immunity that operates to protect judges and quasi-judicial officers alike from

suit in both their official and individual capacities.” Dixon v. Clem, 492 F.3d 665, 674

(6th Cir. 2007). “Judges are generally absolutely immune from civil suits for money

damages, including § 1983 suits.” DePiero v. City of Macedonia, 180 F.3d 770, 783 (6th

Cir. 1999). This immunity is only overcome where a judge is sued for actions taken

outside his judicial capacity or actions taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. 

Dixon, 492 F.3d at 674.

Plaintiff alleges that Judge Yenior falsified court documents showing that Plaintiff

waived his preliminary examination. Plaintiff further alleges that Judge Yenior ordered

the court reporter to deny Plaintiff’s request for transcripts. These allegations certainly

relate to actions taken in Judge Yenior’s judicial capacity, and there is no indication that

the court lacked jurisdiction. Thus, the doctrine of judicial immunity bars Plaintiff’s claim

for damages. Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief, asking that Judge Yenior refrain from

unconstitutional behavior, but § 1983 bars such a claim: “[I]n any action brought against a

2:09-cv-11697-PJD-MKM Doc # 144 Filed 07/14/11 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 1439
4

judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive

relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief

was unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As no such decree was violated, Plaintiff’s claim for

injunctive relief is futile.

Plaintiff cites Muhammad v. Paruk, 553 F. Supp. 2d 893 (E.D. Mich. 2008), for the

proposition that absolute judicial immunity is not available when a judge is sued in his

official capacity. Muhammad, however, held that the Eleventh Amendment to the United

States Constitution barred a claim for damages against a state court judge in his official

capacity. Id. at 898. The court also noted that the plain language of § 1983 barred the

plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief. Id. at 899. Muhammad therefore provides little

support for Plaintiff’s argument. As the claims against Judge Yenior are futile, the Court

accordingly rejects Plaintiff’s objection.

Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s conclusion that Defendant Freehling

is also entitled to immunity. A court reporter acting at a judge’s direction is entitled to

qualified immunity. Green v. Maraio, 722 F.2d 1013, 1018-19 (2d Cir. 1983); see also

James v. Scavoni, No. 99-2066, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21515, at *5 (6th Cir. Aug. 18,

2000). Plaintiff specifically asserts that Judge Yenior directed Freehling to deny his

transcript request. Because Freehling is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court rejects

Plaintiff’s objection.

Plaintiff next objects to the following statement in Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s

order: “All of the Defendants have now filed appearances in this case and have filed

dispositive motions which are currently pending before the Court.” 11/16/10 Order at 3. 

2:09-cv-11697-PJD-MKM Doc # 144 Filed 07/14/11 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 1440
5

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Nightingale has not filed a dispositive motion. The

Court notes, however, that Nightingale filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint on

October 27, 2010. The fact that Nightingale filed an Answer rather than a dispositive

motion does not undermine Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s conclusions regarding the impact

of further delays on the defendants. The Court therefore rejects Plaintiff’s objection.

Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s conclusion that justice would not be

served by further delays in adjudicating the issues in this case. In support of his position,

Plaintiff notes that the scheduling order in this case has not been amended, as required by

this Court’s order dated June 8, 2010. That order addressed the need for an updated

scheduling order due to the reinstatement of certain claims against Defendant Solomon

after discovery and dispositive motion deadlines had passed. The filing of an updated

scheduling order is not relevant to the delay that would be caused by allowing Plaintiff to

amend his Complaint again at this stage of the proceedings. The decision to grant leave to

amend is committed to the court’s discretion. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.

Ct. 227, 230 (1962). Magistrate Judge Majzoub noted that Plaintiff has been given several

extensions of time and has had ample opportunity to state his claims. Magistrate Judge

Majzoub concluded that Plaintiff should be denied leave to amend the Complaint, and the

Court concludes that her determination was not clearly erroneous. The Court therefore

rejects Plaintiff’s objection.

III. Conclusion

The Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s order denying Plaintiff’s

motion to amend was not clearly erroneous. For the same reasons, Magistrate Judge

2:09-cv-11697-PJD-MKM Doc # 144 Filed 07/14/11 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 1441
6

Majzoub did not err in striking the second Amended Complaint from the record.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s orders

denying his motion to amend and striking his Amended Complaint from the record are

REJECTED.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub

William Helmer, #140677

Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility

1727 West Bluewater Highway

Ionia, MI 48846

2:09-cv-11697-PJD-MKM Doc # 144 Filed 07/14/11 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 1442