Laurie Follett v. Alma Housing Commission and Eric Schalm

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

LAURIE FOLLETT, Case No. 1:26-cv-10718

Plaintiff, Shalina D. Kumar v. United States District Judge

ALMA HOUSING COMMISSION and Patricia T. Morris ERIC SCHALM, United States Magistrate Judge

Defendants. /

ORDER CAUTIONING PLAINTIFF AND DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS (ECF Nos. 14, 15, 18)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this case in state court, alleging disability discrimination and violations of federal and state statutes. It was removed to this Court by Defendants on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1). The purpose of this order is twofold. First, the Court will address recent emails sent by Plaintiff to court staff. Second, the Court will direct Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s pending motions. In early May, Plaintiff submitted a document for electronic filing that was rejected by the Clerk’s Office for being discovery material. The subsequent email exchange between Plaintiff and Clerk’s Office staff violated this Court’s civility principles.1 While the Court does not condone profanity in any communications between litigants and court staff, not every misstep requires Court intervention.

However, Plaintiff’s profanity-laden emails far exceed the level of incivility that may be ignored. Plaintiff is thus CAUTIONED that any future communications or filings containing offensive and extreme language will subject her to an order

to show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed, including a prohibition from using the Court’s pro se portal system for electronic filing, and other sanctions within the Court’s inherent authority, including dismissal of the matter. See, e.g., Fharmacy Recs. v. Nassar, 248 F.R.D. 507, 530‒31 (E.D.

Mich. 2008) (finding dismissal appropriate where lesser sanctions would be futile), aff’d, 379 F. App’x 522 (6th Cir. 2010); In re Flint Water Cases, 2022 WL 17407167, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 2, 2022) (prohibiting a pro se litigant from using

the Court’s electronic filing system after a history of vexatious filings). Finally, there are three pending motions in this case filed by Plaintiff to which Defendants have not responded. To ensure the Court is able to rule on the merits of these motions, Defendants are DIRECTED to respond to the motions docketed at

Nos. 14, 15, and 18 by May 27, 2026. Defendants may file one response addressing all three motions or a separate response for each. If Plaintiff wishes to file a reply,

1 A copy of these principles is available at http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/PDFFIles/08- AO-009.pdf. she shall do so by June 10, 2026. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: May 11, 2026 s/PATRICIA T. MORRIS Patricia T. Morris United States Magistrate Judge