Sally J. Berens

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan magistrate 18 signed orders read

How Judge Berens decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Grants a defendant's summary-judgment motion once the record shows the defendant had no personal involvement in the alleged conduct -- for example, an official who had already retired years before the events at issue -- regardless of whether the plaintiff responded.

“Defendant Finco has shown that he could not have been personally involved in the alleged violations, which occurred in 2017 and 2018, because he retired in June 2015 and has had no involvement with MDOC decisions since that time.”

On Social Security appeals, will reverse and remand when an ALJ discounts a treating physician's more restrictive limitations without explaining why, even where other parts of the same opinion credited that physician -- a partial explanation is not a sufficient one.

“the ALJ failed to articulate specifically why she chose not to credit his opinion of more restrictive limitations regarding Plaintiff's abilities to interact appropriately with supervisors ... the Commissioner's post hoc rationale on appeal is not a substitute for the 'good reasons' an ALJ must provide.”

Procedural preferences

In prisoner-exhaustion disputes, applies the distinct exhaustion path for retaliatory-misconduct-ticket claims: they must be raised at the misconduct hearing itself (and on rehearing/appeal), not through the ordinary three-step grievance process, unless the ticket was dismissed before any hearing occurred.

“the Sixth Circuit confirmed that claims concerning decisions made in the misconduct hearing process must be exhausted through that process, not the prison grievance procedure.”

Treats named defendants who have not yet been served as non-parties, which lets her personally enter dispositive PLRA screening rulings and IFP/three-strikes denials in consent-jurisdiction cases even before every defendant has consented under sec. 636(c).

“Because the named defendants have not yet been served, the undersigned concludes that they are not presently parties whose consent is required to permit the undersigned to enter an opinion, order, and judgment.”

Cautions

On a First Amendment public-forum claim against a government social-media page, will grant summary judgment where the government has simply closed off public comments entirely and applied that closure to everyone, regardless of viewpoint -- a total ban on commenting is treated as reasonable and viewpoint-neutral, not as an unconstitutional prior restraint.

“Precluding all users/visitors from commenting on Circuit Court posts is both reasonable in light of the purpose of the Facebook page and viewpoint neutral, as all users are precluded from posting comments, regardless of viewpoint.”

Dismisses pro se cases for lack of prosecution once a plaintiff stops keeping the court apprised of a current mailing address and mail is returned as undeliverable, without needing to separately warn a plaintiff the court cannot reach.

“This is a willful failure by Plaintiff which prejudices Defendants' ability to defend against Plaintiff's claims. The Court is unable to even warn Plaintiff, given its inability to reach him.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Tingley v. State of Michigan
1:20-cv-94 · 2021-05-06
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the State Defendants' ... Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 53) is GRANTED and the federal claims as to those Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Seastrom v. Jennett
1:19-cv-637 · 2021-03-10
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“I recommend that the Court deny Defendant Jennett's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”

Clay v. Haga
1:20-cv-399 · 2021-01-29
Motion to dismiss failure to prosecute (court (sua sponte, Rule 41(b))) Granted

“In sum, I recommend that the Court take the foregoing actions and dismiss this action with prejudice.”

Walker v. Vitalcore Health Strategies, LLC
1:24-cv-536 · 2024-10-03
Motion to dismiss failure to prosecute (court (sua sponte, Rule 41(b) / L.Civ.R. 41.1)) Granted

“I therefore recommend that this action be dismissed with prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute.”

Davis v. Clare County DHHS CPS
1:20-cv-496 · 2020-07-15
Screening dismissal (court (sua sponte, sec. 1915(e)(2) screening)) Granted

“the undersigned recommends that Plaintiffs Rodney and Misty Davis's claims be dismissed with prejudice.”

Jones v. Snyder
1:24-cv-892 · 2024-09-30
Motion in forma pauperis three strikes (plaintiff (IFP application)) Denied

“the Court will deny Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will dismiss this action without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to refile his complaint as a new action in this Court with the full civil action filing fees.”

Lawrence v. Valdez
1:24-cv-587 · 2025-03-28
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Court will grant Defendant Valdez's motion and dismiss Plaintiff's claim against him without prejudice.”

Kelley v. Onekama Consolidated Schools
1:23-cv-270 · 2025-05-15
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Court will grant Defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismiss Kelley's complaint with prejudice.”

Motion to show cause (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“the motion will be denied as moot.”

Cooper-Keel v. State of Michigan
1:22-cv-189 · 2023-06-14
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Court will GRANT the motion and dismiss this action with prejudice.”

Motion to dismiss failure to prosecute (defendant) Denied

“these rules indicate that a Rule 41(a) dismissal is not warranted ... the Court finds that a Rule 41(b) dismissal is not appropriate.”

Dykes v. Finco
1:18-cv-669 · 2020-06-16
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“I recommend that the Court grant Defendant Finco's Motion for Summary Judgment ... and dismiss Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.”

Durr v. VanderWiel
1:23-cv-1286 · 2025-03-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“I recommend that the Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 24) and dismiss Plaintiff's claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.”

Thomas v. Boysen
1:23-cv-996 · 2024-02-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“I recommend that Defendant Bastian's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) be GRANTED and that he be dismissed from this action along with Defendants Boysen and Spieldenner.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Berens's directly-assigned caseload includes a substantial Social Security consent-jurisdiction cohort (28 U.S.C. sec. 636(c)) -- claimants and the Commissioner routinely consent to have her enter final judgment on DIB/SSI appeals -- alongside prisoner civil-rights and PLRA screening matters, general civil suits (contract, FDCPA, employment, FOIA), and criminal-adjacent matters (search-warrant/forfeiture miscellaneous filings). The 2020 filing-year window alone shows well over a dozen Social Security appeals directly assigned to her.

Put Judge Berens's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Berens actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Berens's own signed orders and cites them.