VanLeer v. Detroit Police Department et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BERNARION VANLEER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:25-cv-11425
District Judge Brandy R. McMillion
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
___________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
AND REQUEST (ECF No. 22), PERMITTING LIMITED DISCOVERY, and
EXTENDING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE DEADLINES
A. Background
Bernarion Delshawn VanLeer initiated this lawsuit in pro per on March 11,
2025 against several Defendants. See Case No. 1:25−cv−00289−HYJ−RSK (W.D.
Mich.). The facts underlying Plaintiff’s case concern, inter alia, the alleged events
of November 8, November 9, and November 10, 2023 at Sinai Grace Hospital in
Detroit, MI. (See ECF No. 1, PageID.3-7.)
On May 12, 2025, Judge Jarbou dismissed the MDOC Defendants (Sherry,
Washington, and the MDOC) and transferred the case to this Court. (ECF No. 3.)
As a result, only Defendants Detroit Police Department (DPD) officers, Sinai
Case 2:25-cv-11425-BRM-APP ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 5

2
Grace Hospital Security Employees, and CEO Gary Purushotham remain. (ECF
No. 1, PageID.1-2.) Each is represented by counsel. (ECF Nos. 14, 15, 17, 19.)
This case is now assigned to Judge McMillion, who has referred it to me for
pretrial matters.
B. Instant Motion
Among the motions currently pending before the Court are two motions to
dismiss, each alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a
claim: (1) one filed by Gary Purushotham and Sinai Grace Hospital Security
Employees (ECF No. 15); and, (2) the other filed by the City of Detroit/Detroit
Police Department (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff’s responses to these motions were due
on November 14, 2025 (ECF Nos. 19, 20).
On November 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “motion for stay of order requiring
response to Defendants[’] motion to dismiss” and “request for an order to disclose
discovery” (ECF No. 22, PageID.68-73), as well as a related brief (id., PageID.84-
91). Simultaneously, Plaintiff filed a “motion in brief response to Defendants[’]
motion to dismiss” (id., PageID.92-95) and a related brief (id., PageID.74-83),
which were perhaps intended to be filed separately from Plaintiff’s same-day
motion and request.
C. Order
Case 2:25-cv-11425-BRM-APP ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 5

3
Upon consideration, Plaintiff’s November 12, 2025 motion and request
(ECF No. 22, PageID.68-73) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as
follows: (1) while Plaintiff cites Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (“Relief from a Judgment or
Order”) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 62 (“Stay of Proceedings to Enforce a Judgment”), no
judgment has entered in this case; and, (2) while Plaintiff mentions a June 2025
motion to amend and a July 2025 order denying the motion (see ECF No. 22,
PageID.69-70 ¶¶ 3, 5), it does not appear such a motion was filed in the W.D.
Mich. (see ECF No. 4) or in this District after the case was transferred; however,
(3) to the extent Plaintiff’s filing challenges the Court’s orders requiring responses
(ECF Nos. 18, 20), it will be construed as a motion to extend made “before the
original time or its extension expires[,]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) (“Extending
Time.”) and GRANTED; and, (4) to the extent Plaintiff seeks discovery before
responding to the motions to dismiss, which are ordinarily decided without the
benefit of discovery,1 the Undersigned is struck by Plaintiff’s concern about
1 See, e.g., Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-327 (1989) (“Rule 12(b)(6)
authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis of a dispositive issue of law. . . .
This procedure, operating on the assumption that the factual allegations in the
complaint are true, streamlines litigation by dispensing with needless discovery
and factfinding.”) (internal citations omitted); VCST Int’l B.V. v. BorgWarner
Noblesville, LLC, 142 F.4th 393, 399 (6th Cir. 2025) (Under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6)’s usual framework, courts “must restrict their review to the ‘four corners’
of the complaint and a limited set of other materials, such as documents that the
complaint refers to and depends on.”).
Case 2:25-cv-11425-BRM-APP ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/24/25 Page 3 of 5

4
“correctly naming the specific individuals who were involved in the outlandish
assault against him[,]” (ECF No. 22, PageID.72 ¶ 12). For example, within the
subject matter jurisdiction argument of the Sinai Grace Defendants’ motion to
dismiss, they state: “Plaintiff fails to allege any factual content to suggest that
Defendants Gary Purushotham and the unnamed Sinai Grace Hospital Security
Employees were state actors for purposes of § 1983.” (ECF No. 15, PageID.38,
40, 42.) Similarly, within the background of City of Detroit/DPD’s motion to
dismiss, it states: “Plaintiff does not name any individual City of Detroit police
officers.” (ECF No. 19, PageID.61.)
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY PERMITS Plaintiff to serve
interrogatories (consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33) or requests for production
(consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34) for the limited purpose of identifying the Sinai
Grace security guard(s) and/or DPD officers involved in the alleged events of
November 8, November 9, or November 10, 2023 at Sinai Grace Hospital in
Detroit, MI, to the extent he is unable to discern identification from the police
report referenced in his pleadings, i.e., “Police Report, 23-1113-0265, Ofc Lever
3478, assault and battery.” (See ECF No. 1, PageID.6.). Of course, nothing
prevents Plaintiff from utilizing “informal discovery” techniques for determining
this information, such as Internet searches or Freedom of Information Act requests.
Case 2:25-cv-11425-BRM-APP ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/24/25 Page 4 of 5

5
As for Plaintiff’s simultaneously filed “motion in brief response to
Defendants[’] motion to dismiss” (id., PageID.92-95), rather than assume these are
the responses upon which Plaintiff intends to rest, Plaintiff’s deadline – by which
to file separate responses to Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss (ECF Nos.
15, 19) – is HEREBY EXTENDED to Friday, February 20, 2026, which should
accommodate any discovery Plaintiff serves upon Defendants on the limited issue
of identification. Each response should be tailored to the particular motion it
opposes and should also comply with all applicable rules, in particular E.D. Mich.
LR 5.1 (“Filing of Papers”) and E.D. Mich. LR 7.1 (“Motion Practice”).
Finally, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 21) will be address
under separate cover.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
Dated: November 24, 2025
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2 The attention of the parties is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a
period of fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this order within
which to file objections for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
Case 2:25-cv-11425-BRM-APP ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/24/25 Page 5 of 5