Bielicki v. Doepker

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: January 30, 2025
• Docket: 1:23-cv-12692
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

RICKIE LEE BIELICKI, Case No. 1:23-cv-12692

Plaintiff, David M. Lawson United States District Judge v. Patricia T. Morris BRADLEY J. DOEPKER, et al., United States Magistrate Judge

Defendants. /

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT TYLER G. DAVIDSON’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MEDIA FILE UPLOAD (ECF No. 54) AND GRANTING IN PART JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE (ECF No. 53) AND FINDING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SATISFIED (ECF No. 51) AND STAYING CASE FOR 90 DAYS

I. Introduction The current procedural posture of this case has been explained in filings from the parties as well as by the Court in its December 26, 2024 order (ECF No. 56). In sum, the only plaintiff in this case is Rickie Lee Bielicki who has been proceeding pro se. It is undisputed that Bielicki recently suffered a hemorrhagic stroke that has at least temporarily rendered him incompetent to continue prosecuting this lawsuit. (Id. at PageID.409‒10). Proceedings have been complicated not only by Bielicki’s current medical condition but also by the Court’s lack of a valid mailing address for Bielicki. (See id.). Bielicki’s wife has now provided the Court with an updated

address as well as informed the Court that Bielicki is currently receiving rehabilitative care following brain surgery. (ECF No. 60, PageID.417, 419). With this information in mind, the Court will address numerous outstanding

motions and issues in this case. II. Motion for Leave to File Media File Upload For reasons that will be explained, the Court does not intend to consider the merits of either Defendant Tyler G. Davidson’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 42) nor

his motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 55) in the near future. Nonetheless, the Court GRANTS Davidson’s motion for leave to file a media file upload (ECF No. 54) because the motion was properly filed under the Eastern District of Michigan

Local Rules and the exhibit may be needed in the future. III. Joint Motion to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline On December 18, 2024, Defendants jointly filed a motion to adjourn the dispositive motion deadline of December 20, 2024. (ECF No. 53). This motion may

now be moot as to Davidson who filed a timely motion for summary judgment on December 20, 2024. (ECF No. 55). Regardless, the Court GRANTS this motion IN PART. If this case is not

dismissed for reasons that will be explained below, then the Court will set a new dispositive motion deadline. The motion is DENIED only so far as it requests a stay be entered other than the one described below and suggests a new deadline of

February 3, 2025. IV. Order to Show Cause The Court will now address the salient issue in this case.

To begin, the Court FINDS that the October 30, 2024 order to show cause (ECF No. 51) is SATISFIED. Bielicki’s wife appears to have tried to comply with the Court’s orders and deadlines to the best of her ability by filing a response to the order to show cause that provides both a current mailing address and an update on

Bielicki’s current health. (ECF No. 60). While the Court is sympathetic to Bielicki’s medical issues and the difficult position of his wife, it does not believe that an indefinite stay of proceedings is

appropriate. Instead, the Court will now STAY the case for NINETY DAYS from the date of entry of this order. During this period, Bielicki’s wife is encouraged to seek counsel to represent Bielicki in this matter. The Court will provide information for one resource below.

Before the expiration of the stay, Bielicki must either file (1) an affidavit stating that he has regained competency and is thus able to continue pro se OR (2) an appearance from an attorney. Bielicki’s wife is not an attorney and thus

cannot continue to make filings on Bielicki’s behalf. See, e.g., Berrios v. New York City Hous. Auth., 564 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 2009) (“The fact that a minor or incompetent person must be represented by a next friend, guardian ad litem, or other

fiduciary does not alter the principle embodied in 42 U.S.C. § 1654 that a non- attorney is not allowed to represent another individual in federal court litigation without the assistance of counsel.”).

If no affidavit or appearance is filed before the expiration of the stay, then it will be recommended that the case be dismissed without prejudice for a failure to prosecute. On the other hand, if an affidavit or appearance is timely filed, then the Court will enter an order setting a deadline for the filing of additional dispositive

motions as well as briefing deadlines for the two dispositive motions that are currently pending before the Court. Bielicki’s wife is advised that she may seek free legal assistance from the

University of Detroit Mercy Law School Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Clinic. The Clinic can be reached by telephone at (313) 234-2690 or email at proseclinic@udmercy.edu. V. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, • Davidson’s motion for leave to file a media file upload (ECF No. 54) is GRANTED; • The Court’s October 30, 2024 order to show cause (ECF No. 51) is SATISFIED; and

• Defendants’ motion to adjourn the dispositive motion deadline of December 20, 2024 (ECF No. 53) is GRANTED IN PART, and the case is STAYED for NINETY DAYS from the date of entry of this

order. • Before the expiration of the stay, Bielicki must either file (1) an affidavit stating that he has regained competency and is thus able to

continue pro se OR (2) an appearance from an attorney, otherwise the Undersigned will recommend that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 30, 2025 s/PATRICIA T. MORRIs Patricia T. Morris United States Magistrate Judge