Dale Herman v. Aaron Hawkins, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: January 6, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-10924
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DALE HERMAN Plaintiff, Case No. 25-10924 Honorable Terrence G. Berg v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

AARON HAWKINS, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY, BUT DELAYING THE ISSUANCE OF A SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF NO. 35)

Plaintiff Dale Herman, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued multiple defendants in this prisoner civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. After screening his complaint, the Honorable Terrence G. Berg dismissed all claims except Herman’s claims against Defendants Aaron Hawkins, C. Tobar, and S. Mohler stemming from their alleged excessive force. ECF No. 7. Judge Berg then referred the matter to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 15. Hawkins, Tobar, and Mohler move to stay discovery in this case until the Court rules on their pending summary judgment motion. ECF No. 35. “Trial courts have broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are determined.”

Hahn v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708, 719 (6th Cir. 1999). But discovery has not yet begun here because the Court has not yet issued a scheduling order. Thus, the Court DENIES the motion to stay as MOOT.

Defendants may have meant to request that no scheduling order be issued until their motion for summary judgment is decided. Because defendants’ motion involves exhaustion of administrative remedies, a preliminary question that may dispose of the case, the Court agrees that

discovery should not yet proceed and will issue a scheduling order only if the motion for summary judgment is denied. s/Elizabeth A. Stafford ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: January 6, 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 January 6, 2026.

s/Davon Allen DAVON ALLEN Case Manager