Waid et al v. Snyder et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
In re Flint Water Cases.
________________________________/
This Order Relates To:
ALL CASES
________________________________/
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING COLLEEN CONNORS’ MOTIONS TO STAY
PENDING APPEAL [3321, 3322]
This Order addresses two filings by Colleen Connors.1 On October
17, 2025, Ms. Connors filed an “EMERGENCY [EX - PARTE]
motion/request and notice of the STATUS.” (ECF No. 3321.) On October
20, 2025, Ms. Connors filed a “Corrected/supplemented EMERGENCY
[EX - PARTE] motion/request and notice of the STATUS.” (ECF No.
3322.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies both motions.
I. 	Background
1 Ms. Connors’ name generally appears as “Colleen Conners” on the docket,
but her filings are generally signed “Colleen Connors.”
Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-EAS ECF No. 3337, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 1 of 6

2
Ms. Connors is not a party to any of the Flint water litigation.2 She
has no role in the present case, Meeks v. United States, which involves
the United States and three individuals who were minor children at the
time of the Flint Water Crisis.
On October 1, 2025, Defendant the United States moved to stay all
litigation activities in Meeks, citing the government shutdown and the
resulting lapse of appropriations. (ECF No. 3302.) On October 8, 2025,
the Court denied the United States’ motion to stay. (ECF No. 3311.) On
the same day, Ms. Connors filed a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 3312.) Ms.
Connors appears to appeal the Court’s denial of the United States’ motion
to stay. (See id. at PageID.110093 (arguing “the US EPA MUST BE
ALLOWED ADEQUATE TIME TO INVESTIGATE”).) On October 14,
2025, Melvin Jones filed a similar appeal. (See ECF No. 3316,
PageID.110150 (arguing that the Court “wrongly and unconstitutionally
DENIED” the United States’ motion to stay).) Like Ms. Connors, Mr.
Jones is not a party to any of the Flint water litigation.
2 It is the Court’s understanding that Ms. Connors has submitted a claim in
the partial settlement of the Flint water litigation, however, she is not a party to
the litigation.
Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-EAS ECF No. 3337, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 2 of 6

3
Between October 17, 2025 and October 20, 2025, Ms. Connors filed
two additional motions. (ECF Nos. 3321, 3322.) As best as the Court can
tell, the first is a motion for a stay pending appeal. (See ECF No. 3321,
PageID.110170–110171 (“[I] thought it is worth the time for me to
ASK/REQUEST that you please consider SOMEHOW ….having a VERY
limited ‘STAY’ . . . so as to ALLOW the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to
‘weigh-in.’”).) Half of the motion consists of an “exhibit” showing an email
from Mr. Jones to Attorney Deborah LaBelle. (See id. at PageID.110173–
110178.) The relevance of the email is unclear. The second motion
purports to be a “Corrected/supplemented” version of the first. (See ECF
No. 3322, PageID.110179.)3
II. Analysis
Ms. Connors seemingly seeks a stay of the Meeks litigation pending
resolution of the two appeals filed by herself and Mr. Jones. (See ECF No.
3321, PageID.110171 (referencing “6th Circuit Appeals #25-1909 and
3 It is difficult to make sense of how exactly the second motion corrects or
supplements the first. It consists largely of additional emails sent to Attorney
Deborah LaBelle by Mr. Jones. (See ECF No. 3322, PageID.110184–110203.) As
with the first motion, the relevance of the emails is unclear.
Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-EAS ECF No. 3337, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 3 of 6

4
#[TBD]”); ECF No. 3322, PageID.110180 (referencing “6th Circuit Court
pro se appeal #25-1909 [and] pro se appeal #25-1932”).)
Four factors are relevant when evaluating whether to grant a stay
pending appeal:
(1) the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will prevail
on the merits of the appeal; (2) the likelihood that the moving
party will be irreparably harmed absent a stay; (3) the
prospect that others will be harmed if the court grants the
stay; and (4) the public interest in granting the stay.
SEIU Local 1 v. Husted, 698 F.3d 341, 343 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting
Michigan Coalition of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog,
945 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir. 1991)).
Here, these factors plainly favor denying a stay pending appeal.
First, there is little likelihood that Ms. Connors or Mr. Jones will prevail
on the merits of their appeals. Neither Ms. Connors nor Mr. Jones are
parties in the case. As a general rule, “only parties to a lawsuit . . . may
appeal an adverse judgment.” Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304 (1988);
accord Fidel v. Farley, 534 F.3d 508, 512 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Generally, non-
parties cannot appeal from an order of the district court, unless they have
first sought leave to intervene as party.”) (citing Marino, 484 U.S. at 304);
20 Moore's Federal Practice § 303.10 (2025) (“To have standing to appeal,
Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-EAS ECF No. 3337, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 4 of 6

5
the appellant must usually have been a party of record at the time the
order or judgment appealed from was entered.”).
Ms. Connors and Mr. Jones are also unlikely to prevail on the
merits of their appeals because they are appealing an interlocutory order.
Only some interlocutory orders are immediately appealable. Miller v.
Anderson, Nos. 21-3854/4037, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37257, at *3 (6th
Cir. Dec. 16, 2021) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), (b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)).
“An interlocutory order denying a stay of a district court's own
proceedings is generally not appealable under § 1292(a)(1).” Id. (citing
Swanson v. DeSantis, 606 F.3d 829, 832-34 (6th Cir. 2010)). Nor is the
denial of a motion to stay typically appealable under the collateral order
doctrine. Id. (citing 15A Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 3914.13 (2d ed.)).
Ms. Connors’ motions should also be denied because there is little
likelihood that Ms. Connors will be irreparably harmed absent a stay. As
set forth above, Ms. Connors is not a party—and in fact has no role—in
the present case.4 In contrast, Plaintiffs, as well as the public, have an
4 Ms. Connors does present one interesting theory regarding her interest in
the litigation. As she puts it, the United States “means [me]/Colleen Connors as [I]
actual comprise PART of the United States of America.” (ECF No. 3312,
Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-EAS ECF No. 3337, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 5 of 6

6
interest in the timely resolution of this litigation, which has been pending
for nearly six years. The Court sees no reason to permit further delays in
order to entertain frivolous appeals by nonparties.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Ms. Connors’
motions to stay pending appeal. (ECF Nos. 3321, 3322.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 24, 2025 	s/Judith E. Levy
Ann Arbor, Michigan 	JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on October 24, 2025.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
PageID.110093.) Of course, on this theory, every docket involving the United States
would be at the utter mercy of every individual who can claim to be “part of the
United States.”
Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-EAS ECF No. 3337, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 6 of 6