Kuerbitz v. Bouchard et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ARNOLD KUERBITZ,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 24-cv-10774
v. 	Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
MICHAEL J. BOUCHARD, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S (1) MOTION FOR
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (ECF No. 81)
AND (2) MOTION TO REMAND (ECF No. 82)
On March 6, 2024, Plaintiff Arnold Kuerbitz filed a pro se civil-rights action
in this Court against Defendants Michael Bouchard, Karen McDonald, and several
John Doe and Jane Doe Defendants who Kuerbitz says worked for Oakland County
in various capacities. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) 	The Court granted Defendants’
motions to dismiss (see Orders, ECF Nos. 43, 72), and, on June 26, 2025, it entered
judgment against Kuerbitz that reflected the dismissal of his Complaint. (See
Judgment, ECF No. 72.)
Kuerbitz has now filed an appeal of the Court’s dismissal of his Complaint in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (See Notice of Appeal, ECF
No. 79.) He has also filed two motions in this Court: (1) a motion for a certificate
of appealability (ECF No. 81) and (2) a motion to remand (ECF No. 82).
Case 2:24-cv-10774-MFL-APP ECF No. 84, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 2

2
The Court DENIES both motions. 	First, it appears that the motions are
directed at, and seek relief from, the Sixth Circuit. To the extent that Kuerbitz seeks
relief from that court, he should file his motions in that forum. Second, to the extent
that Kuerbitz is seeking through his motions to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal,
the Court DENIES that request because it does not believe that an appeal could be
taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. 24(a). Finally, to the extent that Kuerbitz seeks
a remand, he has provided no basis under which this Court could grant him that
relief. This case was initially filed in this Court, not state court, and if Kuerbitz seeks
a remand from the Sixth Circuit, his request would need to be made to that court.
For all of the reasons explained above, Kuerbitz’ pending motions (ECF Nos.
81, 82) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
Dated: December 3, 2025 	UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on December 3, 2025, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
(313) 234-5126
Case 2:24-cv-10774-MFL-APP ECF No. 84, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 2