Hood v. Smith et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
JULIAN R. HOOD, JR., 	Case No. 	1:25-cv-01237
Plaintiff, 	Hon. 	Jane M. Beckering
U.S. District Judge
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. 	Introduction
This Report and Recommendation (R. & R.) addresses:
 	Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, ECF No. 21;
 	Defendant Smith and Wheeler Upham, P.C.’s motion to dismiss, ECF
No. 29;
 	Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to serve the complaint, ECF
No. 34;
 	Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, ECF No. 37;
and
 	Defendant American Postal Workers Union’s motion to dismiss, ECF
No. 40.
Plaintiff Julian R. Hood filed his original complaint on October 14, 2025. 	ECF
No. 1. 	Hood initially named as Defendants the United States Postal Service;
Case 1:25-cv-01237-JMB-MV ECF No. 46, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/23/26 Page 1
of 5

2
Unknown parties; Wheeler Upham, P.C.; Glenn L. Smith; the American Postal
Workers 	Union; 	the 	Michigan 	Postal Workers 	Union; 	and 	Local 	281 	Western
Michigan Area. 	Id. 	Hood’s recent complaint is another repackaged version of the
numerous lawsuits that he filed regarding his termination from the U.S. Postal
Service over 20 years ago.
In November of 2005, Hood entered into a settlement agreement to withdraw
his EEO complaint in exchange for his employment record to reflect resignation
instead of termination, and for $440.00 and attorney fees. 	Hood v. DeJoy, 1:24-cv-
1295 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 2, 2025) (ECF No. 22).
More recently, on November 4, 2025, this Court issued an Order stating the
following:
that Plaintiff is prohibited from filing new lawsuits challenging
his 	Postal 	Service 	termination 	and 	the 	2005 	settlement
agreement. Before filing any future action, Plaintiff must file a
motion—accompanied by his proposed complaint and a copy of
this Order—seeking certification that his claims are unrelated
to 	his 	Postal 	Service 	termination 	and 	the 	2005 	settlement
agreement.
Hood v. DeJoy, 1:24-cv-1295 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 2, 2025) (Memorandum Opinion and
Order, ECF No. 26, PageID.171-172.) 	This lawsuit was filed before the Court
entered the order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing new lawsuits challenging his Postal
Service termination and the 2005 settlement agreement. Therefore, it appears that
this will be Plaintiff’s final lawsuit concerning his challenge to his Postal Service
termination and the 2005 settlement agreement in this Court.
Case 1:25-cv-01237-JMB-MV ECF No. 46, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/23/26 Page 2
of 5

3
Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint and attached a
proposed amended complaint. 	ECF No. 37-1. 	The proposed amended complaint is
against Attorney Smith, who is Plaintiff’s former attorney, and the law firm Wheeler
Upham, P.C. alleging that these Defendants engaged in fraud regarding the 2005
settlement agreement. 	The proposed amended complaint asserts no claims against
the United States Postal Service, Unknown parties, the American Postal Workers
Union, the Michigan Postal Workers Union, and Local 281 Western Michigan Area.
Leave to amend a complaint “shall be freely given when justice so requires.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 	However, “a party must act with due diligence if it intends to
take advantage of the Rule’s liberality.” 	United States v. Midwest Suspension and
Brake, 49 F.3d 1197, 1202 (6th Cir. 1995). 	The court may deny leave to amend a
complaint where the amendment is brought in bad faith, will result in undue delay
or prejudice to the opposing party, or is futile. 	Crawford v. Roane, 53 F.3d 750, 753
(6th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1354 (1996).
Defendants Wheeler Upham, P.C, and attorney Smith argue that the proposed
amended complaint should be denied as futile, asserting that the proposed amended
complaint “restates the same allegations made in his first complaint.” 	ECF No. 43,
PageID.726. 	In the opinion of the undersigned, the Court should allow Plaintiff to
amend his complaint. The circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s amended complaint
are unique. 	Plaintiff has filed several unsuccessful lawsuits concerning his 2005
settlement agreement. 	He is now barred from filing new lawsuits concerning the
2005 settlement agreement. 	This lawsuit, however, was filed just before the Court
Case 1:25-cv-01237-JMB-MV ECF No. 46, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/23/26 Page 3
of 5

4
entered the order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing future lawsuits on this issue. 	The
sole fact that Plaintiff may have been aware that the Court was considering
prohibiting him from filing future lawsuits regarding his Postal Service termination
in 2005, is not sufficient to prohibit him from filing this final lawsuit. 	It may be a
factor for possible monetary sanctions against Plaintiff, if appropriate, but it is not,
in the opinion of the undesigned, a factor prohibiting Plaintiff from filing this lawsuit.
This is because there was no indication that the November 2, 2025, order applied
retroactively.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Court GRANT Plaintiff’s motion to
amend his complaint, ECF No. 37, and accept the proposed amended complaint, ECF
No. 37-1, as Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
It is further recommended that the Court DENY Plaintiff’s motion for default
judgment against Defendants Smith and Wheeler Upham, ECF No. 21, because these
Defendants have appeared in this case.
It is further recommended that the Court DENY Defendants Smith and
Wheeler Upham, P.C.’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 29, without prejudice and allow
these Defendants to file a new motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint if deemed
appropriate.
It is further recommended that the Court DENY as moot, Defendant American
Postal Workers Union’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 40, and Plaintiff’s motion for an
extension of time to serve the complaint, ECF No. 34.
Case 1:25-cv-01237-JMB-MV ECF No. 46, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/23/26 Page 4
of 5

5
It is further recommended that the Court Dismiss Defendants United States
Postal Service, Unknown parties, the American Postal Workers Union, the Michigan
Postal Workers Union, and Local 281 Western Michigan Area.
If the Court accepts these recommendations this lawsuit will proceed only
against Defendants Smith and Wheeler Upham, P.C.
NOTICE TO PARTIES: 	Objections to this Report and Recommendation must
be served on opposing parties and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen
(14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). 	Failure to file timely objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal. 	United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 	See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Dated: 	February 23, 2026 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01237-JMB-MV ECF No. 46, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/23/26 Page 5
of 5