By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
The Department of Corrections defendants in an ongoing conditions lawsuit will have a chance to present additional evidence that the plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit, court records show.
Bailey v. Washington (USEDM Docket No. 19-13442) alleges the department maintained poor conditions that led to the presence of toxic mold at the Huron Valley Women’s Correctional Facility. It was dismissed along with Pearson v. Corrections (USEDM Docket No. 19-10707) but later revived by the courts on an amended complaint.
The defendants, including MDOC Director Heidi Washington, moved for summary judgement and argued, for a second time, that the plaintiffs failed to properly exhaust their administrative remedies before filing the lawsuit.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied that request, noting that the plaintiffs had demonstrated “sufficient and appropriate efforts to comply with administrative procedures” to survive a finding of summary judgment.
Undeterred, Washington and other MDOC employees next moved for an evidentiary hearing or bench trial to resolve remaining issues of facts on whether those administrative remedies were truly exhausted. That motion also asked for, in the alternative, reconsideration of the initial summary judgment denial.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy of the Eastern District of Michigan granted the defendants’ motion for an evidentiary hearing. Those proceedings will be handled by a magistrate judge, Murphy ordered. A hearing date was not detailed in the order.
Murphy did not, however, grant the MDOC defendants’ request for reconsideration because the evidentiary hearing would clear up those remaining issues of fact.
The case continues after the lawsuit was initially dismissed in September 2020 due to technical issues with the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, with a judge stating it fell short of pleading requirements and failed to state a claim.
It was later revived after the judge told the plaintiffs that they could seek leave to reopen their cases to file a second amended complaint within 21 days of the orders. If they did, they were obligated to name specific allegations and put each defendant on notice concerning the misconduct alleged.
That changed, however, in late March when the judge allowed the Bailey plaintiffs to file a new complaint, resurrecting the case in the district court.
Gongwer News Service
The Department of Corrections defendants in an ongoing conditions lawsuit will have a chance to present additional evidence that the plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit, court records show.
Bailey v. Washington (USEDM Docket No. 19-13442) alleges the department maintained poor conditions that led to the presence of toxic mold at the Huron Valley Women’s Correctional Facility. It was dismissed along with Pearson v. Corrections (USEDM Docket No. 19-10707) but later revived by the courts on an amended complaint.
The defendants, including MDOC Director Heidi Washington, moved for summary judgement and argued, for a second time, that the plaintiffs failed to properly exhaust their administrative remedies before filing the lawsuit.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied that request, noting that the plaintiffs had demonstrated “sufficient and appropriate efforts to comply with administrative procedures” to survive a finding of summary judgment.
Undeterred, Washington and other MDOC employees next moved for an evidentiary hearing or bench trial to resolve remaining issues of facts on whether those administrative remedies were truly exhausted. That motion also asked for, in the alternative, reconsideration of the initial summary judgment denial.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy of the Eastern District of Michigan granted the defendants’ motion for an evidentiary hearing. Those proceedings will be handled by a magistrate judge, Murphy ordered. A hearing date was not detailed in the order.
Murphy did not, however, grant the MDOC defendants’ request for reconsideration because the evidentiary hearing would clear up those remaining issues of fact.
The case continues after the lawsuit was initially dismissed in September 2020 due to technical issues with the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, with a judge stating it fell short of pleading requirements and failed to state a claim.
It was later revived after the judge told the plaintiffs that they could seek leave to reopen their cases to file a second amended complaint within 21 days of the orders. If they did, they were obligated to name specific allegations and put each defendant on notice concerning the misconduct alleged.
That changed, however, in late March when the judge allowed the Bailey plaintiffs to file a new complaint, resurrecting the case in the district court.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
