Christian James Bluemlein v. Devid Kerns, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: April 9, 2026
• Docket: 4:25-cv-12637
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTIAN JAMES BLUEMLEIN, Case No. 25-cv-12637 Honorable F. Kay Behm Plaintiff, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

v.

DEVID KERNS, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF NO. 22)

Plaintiff Christian James Bluemlein, a pro se prisoner of the Michigan Department of Corrections, sues defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations during his incarceration at the Saginaw County Jail (SCJ). ECF No. 1. Defendants allegedly failed to provide Bluemlein with clean socks and sheets, ten minutes of local telephone calls per week, and to wear street clothing for court appearances, in violation of the Eighth Amendment and an injunction entered in O’Bryan v. Saginaw Cnty., Mich., 446 F. Supp. 436 (E.D. Mich. 1978). The Honorable F. Kay Behm referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 9.

Bluemlein moves for an order requiring defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating the injunction entered in O’Bryan. ECF No. 22. But the injunction entered in that case was

terminated in February 2025. O’Bryan, 765 F. Supp. 3d 627, 631 (E.D. Mich. 2025). That opinion was reached after a pro se plaintiff—a prisoner at the SCJ who was uninvolved in the original litigation—filed in 2021 a motion for the defendants to show cause why they should not be held in

contempt for violating the 1978 injunction. Id. at 629. Because the injunction was entered before the Prison Litigation Reform Act was enacted and before the SCJ constructed “a new $35.8 million jail facility,” the court

terminated the 1978 injunction. Id. at 631. Because the injunction has been terminated, defendants cannot be held in contempt for any alleged violations. Thus, Bluemlein’s motion for an order to show cause is DENIED. But Bluemlein may pursue his claims

that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights. s/Elizabeth A. Stafford ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: April 9, 2026 NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS

Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous

or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. “When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on April 9, 2026.

s/Caitlin Shrum CAITLIN SHRUM Case Manager