Gregory Hardy v. K. Jones, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: March 11, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-12718
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY HARDY, Case No. 25-12718 Plaintiff, Honorable Robert J. White Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford v.

K. JONES, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S IMPROPER FILINGS (ECF NOS. 35, 40 & 41)

Plaintiff Gregory Hardy sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 15. The Court strikes three of Hardy’s improper filings. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) authorizes parties to file various pleadings, limited to: a complaint; an answer to a complaint; an answer to a counterclaim; an answer to a crossclaim; a third-party complaint; an answer to a third-party complaint; or, if the court orders one, a reply to an answer. Parties may also file motions that “state with particularity the grounds for seeking” a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). And the Court’s local rules permit parties to file responses and replies to motions. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(d). Hardy filed a “Supplemental Notice” in support of his “Omnibus Motion for Counsel” without seeking leave to do so. ECF No. 35. Thus,

the Court STRIKES this unauthorized filing. Hardy also filed a “Notice of Filing Supplemental Exculpatory Evidence” and an “Amended Notice Of Clarification Regarding Video

Evidence And Identification Of Officers” on the docket. ECF No. 40; ECF No. 41. Because these documents are not motions or other filings authorized under Rule 7 or the local rules, the Court STRIKES them. The Court also WARNS Hardy that he will face sanctions if he clogs

the docket with improper filings. “Every paper filed with the Clerk of this court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources. A part of the court's responsibility is to see

that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.” Moore v. Hillman, No. 4:06-CV-43, 2006 WL 1313880, at *4 (W.D. Mich. May 12, 2006). Hardy’s pro se status does not give him license “to clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already

overloaded court dockets.” Bradley v. Wallrad, No. 1:06 cv 246, 2006 WL 1133220, at * 1 n.2 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 27, 2006) (cleaned up). The sanctions that Hardy may face include (1) involuntary dismissal with prejudice;1 and (2) revoking the plaintiff’s IFP status in this case.2

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: March 11, 2026

NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous

or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. “When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.

1 See Bradley J. Delp Revocable Tr. v. MSJMR 2008 Irrevocable Tr., 665 F. App’x 514, 520 (6th Cir. 2016).

2 See Youn v. Track, Inc., 324 F.3d 409, 420 (6th Cir. 2003); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Molter v. Trinity Health, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2025 WL 3295122, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 26, 2025). CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served on 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 March 11, 2026.

s/Caitlin Shrum CAITLIN SHRUM Case Manager