Evans et al v. Robertson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Sybrena Evans,
Plaintiff,
v.
Danielle Robertson, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
Case No. 24-13435
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Mag. Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON PLAINTIFF SYBRENA
EVANS AND DEFENDANT DANIELLE ROBERTSON
On November 7, 2025, the Court issued an order to show cause
why Plaintiff Sybrena Evans and Defendant “Danielle Robertson”1
should not be sanctioned for repeated failure to follow Court orders and
for dishonesty to the Court. (ECF No. 106, PageID.2263.) Both Plaintiff
and Defendant filed responses to the Court’s order to show cause. (ECF
Nos. 107, 108.)
The Court may impose sanctions “under its inherent powers when
a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive
1 “Danielle Robertson” is Defendant’s alias and not her true name.
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 111, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 11

2
reasons . . . or when the conduct is tantamount to bad faith.” Metz v.
Unizan Bank, 655 F.3d 485, 489 (6th Cir. 2011) (cleaned up). Such
actions include when a party “shows bad faith by delaying or disrupting
the litigation or by hampering enforcement of a court order,” Chambers
v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46 (1991) (quoting Hutto v. Finney, 437
U.S. 678, 689 n.14 (1978)), or “if a court finds ‘that fraud has been
practiced upon it, or that the very temple of justice has been defiled.’”
Id. (quoting Universal Oil Prods. Co. v. Root Ref. Co., 328 U.S. 575, 580
(1946)).
I. 	Defendant’s response to the Court’s order to show
cause (ECF No. 108)
In Defendant’s response to the Court’s show cause order, she
explains that she takes “full and personal responsibility” for the
factitious citations in her filings, that these errors “were the result of
careless transcription, misapplication of case holdings, and failure to
perform the required verification checks,” and that she did not intend to
“mislead, deceive, or perpetuate a fraud upon this Court.” (ECF No.
108, PageID.2281.) Defendant includes corrections to her factitious
citations and does not object to the imposition of appropriate sanctions.
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 111, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 11

3
The Court appreciates Defendant’s honesty and that she has
taken responsibility for her filings. While Defendant represents that her
factitious citations were not made in bad faith, the Court still finds that
sanctions are appropriate. As set forth in the Court’s order to show
cause, the Court identified four filings by Defendant with factitious
citations, even after Judge Stafford issued an order warning the parties
against factitious citations and requiring them to include written
representations that they personally checked each legal citation, and
each citation is accurate and stands for its asserted proposition. (See
ECF No. 106, PageID.2255, 2264 n.5.) Even if these factitious citations
were not done maliciously, the Court finds that these factitious citations
were “tantamount to bad faith” or used “wantonly.”2 Metz, 655 F.3d at
489.
Additionally, Defendant’s response to the Court’s show cause
order is nine pages long despite the Court’s order that the response may
not exceed seven pages, including exhibits. (ECF No. 106, PageID.2264–
2 “Wanton” is defined as “[u]nreasonably or maliciously risking harm while
being utterly indifferent to the consequences.” Wanton, Black’s Law Dictionary
(12th ed. 2024)
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 111, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 11

4
2265, n.6.) As such, Defendant’s response does not follow the Court’s
order.
II. Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s order to show cause
(ECF No. 107)
In Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s show cause order, she claims
that she received assistance from librarians at the University of Detroit
Mercy Law Library on October 23, October 31, and November 10, 2025,
and used Westlaw to verify that her citations were accurate. (ECF No.
107, PageID.2275–2276; id. at PageID.2280 (screenshots purporting to
show emails with information on citations from a librarian from the
University of Detroit Mercy Law Library).)
Plaintiff’s response provides corrections to her factitious citations,
but also states that the factitious citations in her filings were
“inadvertent, not intentional” and “arose from end-stage formatting
under deadline pressure—not from any attempt to mislead.” (ECF No.
107, PageID.2276.) Plaintiff also represents that her false quotation
from Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404–05 (9th
Cir. 2010) was unintentional because she intended to use quotation
marks as an “emphasis around a paraphrased line” and that she “has
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 111, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 4 of 11

5
long used quotation marks for emphasis but now understands that legal
filings require exact quotations only.” (ECF No. 107, PageID.2277.)
Plaintiff’s explanations are not convincing. For example, Plaintiff
states,
The prior citations to Smith v. Arnold, No. 16-1487, 2017 WL
1193990 (8th Cir. Mar. 28, 2017), and Townsend v. Chase Bank
USA, N.A., No. 19-11083, 2019 WL 7206100 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 26,
2019), resulted from clerical mix-ups during final formatting.
Neither accurately reflected the controlling principle intended.
Upon verification through the University of Detroit Mercy Law
Library, Plaintiff confirmed that the correct and controlling
authority is Hooks v. Hooks, 771 F.2d 935 (6th Cir. 1985) . . . .
(ECF No. 107, PageID.2275.) Later in her response, Plaintiff claims
that her citations to “Smith v. Arnold, No. 16-1487, 2017 WL 1193990
(8th Cir. Mar. 28, 2017),” and “Townsend v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., No.
19-11083, 2019 WL 7206100 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 26, 2019)” were
“incompletely verified due to reliance on partial Westlaw search results
rather than full opinion text.” (ECF No. 107, PageID.2278.)
Plaintiff’s explanations regarding these citations lack consistency
and credibility. The Court understands that typos can happen, or that
someone could accidentally cite the wrong case. Here, however, the
Court cannot comprehend how “clerical mix-ups” or “partial Westlaw
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 111, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 5 of 11

6
search results” can result in citations that (1) bear no resemblance to
Hooks v. Hooks, 771 F.2d 935 (6th Cir. 1985), and (2) contain case
names that bear no resemblance to the actual case names related to the
citations, and vice-versa.3 Furthermore, Plaintiff’s claim that she
misunderstood the purpose of quotation marks is implausible
considering that she used quotation marks correctly in that same brief
(ECF No. 90) and in many others prior to the Court’s order to show
cause.
3 As set forth in the Court’s order to show cause, Plaintiff’s factitious citation
to “Townsend v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., No. 19-11083, 2019 WL 7206100 (E.D.
Mich. Dec. 26, 2019)” appears to be a combination of several different case citations
and bears no close resemblance to a legitimate case:
The citation, 2019 WL 7206100, refers to Cyr v. Ford Motor Co., No. 345751,
2019 WL 7206100 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 26, 2019) . . . . The Court was able to
locate a case called Townsend v. Chase Bank USA N.A., that was issued by
District Court for the Central District of California in 2009 [not 2019], but
this opinion does not contain Plaintiff’s quote. See Townsend v. Chase Bank
USA N.A., No. SACV08-00527AGANX, 2009 WL 426393, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Feb.
15, 2009).
(ECF No. 106, PageID.2257–2258.) Plaintiff’s factitious citation to “Smith v. Arnold,
No. 16-1487, 2017 WL 1193990 (8th Cir. Mar. 28, 2017) (unpublished)” is the same:
The Eighth Circuit issued five opinions on March 28, 2017, and none are
titled “Smith v. Arnold.” The citation, 2017 WL 1193990, refers to a filing in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. See Thomas v.
Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV SAG-16-1229, 2017 WL 1193990 (D. Md.
Mar. 29, 2017).
(ECF No. 106, PageID.2257.)
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 111, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 6 of 11

7
Finally, Plaintiff argues that sanctions are not warranted because
“the citation inaccuracies were inadvertent, not intentional, and were
promptly addressed once identified.” (ECF No. 107, PageID.2276.)
Plaintiff’s argument regarding her prompt response to the Court’s show
cause order is not well taken. Plaintiff was required to “promptly
address” her factitious citations due to the Court’s order to show cause,
not by her own initiative.
It is not the Court’s role to identify failures to correctly cite cases.
Although the Court acknowledges that both parties are pro se and
should be “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers,” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)), a litigant’s pro se status is
not an excuse for wasting Judge Stafford and the undersigned’s time.
The parties’ repeated use of erroneous and factitious citations “disrupts
the Court’s timely and efficient review of cases, as its efforts are wasted
researching nonexistent citations and legal principles.” (ECF No. 74,
PageID.782–783.)
While Plaintiff represents that her factitious citations were not
used intentionally, this does not excuse Plaintiff’s violations. As set
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 111, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 7 of 11

8
forth in the Court’s order to show cause, the Court identified three
filings by Plaintiff with factitious citations, even after Judge Stafford
issued an order warning the parties against factitious citations and
requiring them to include written representations that they personally
checked each legal citation, and each citation is accurate and stands for
its asserted proposition. (See ECF No. 106, PageID.2255, 2264 n.5.)
Even if these factitious citations were not done maliciously, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s failures were “tantamount to bad faith” or
“wanton.” Metz, 655 F.3d at 489. Additionally, Plaintiff’s explanations
for why these factitious citations were included in her briefs are not
credible.
III. Sanctions
In the Court’s order to show cause, it listed possible sanctions,
such as monetary sanctions payable to the Court, a prohibition on
future filings until the monetary sanction is paid to the Court, requiring
an in-person hearing regarding failure to follow court orders, and
revoking the parties’ Pro Se Electronic Document Upload privileges,
which would require them to file documents either by mail or by hand-
delivery. (ECF No. 106, PageID.2264.)
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 111, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 8 of 11

9
The Court finds that an appropriate sanction at this time is to
revoke Plaintiff and Defendant’s Pro Se Electronic Document Upload
privileges for this case. For all filings related to this case, 24-13435
(E.D. Mich.), Plaintiff and Defendant must file documents by
mail or by hand-delivery to the Clerk’s office.4 The Court believes
that revoking Plaintiff and Defendant’s Pro Se Electronic Document
Upload privileges will remind the parties to be appropriately careful
and intentional with their filings to the Court and that such filings
must be truthful and not waste the Court’s time.
The Court will not impose monetary sanctions or require the
parties to attend an in-person hearing at this time. However, in the
event that a future filing contains factitious citations, the Court will
impose additional sanctions, including but not limited to monetary
sanctions of $100.00 per brief with factitious citations.
The stricken briefs with factitious citations (ECF Nos. 78,79, 90,
91, 93, 103, 105) will remain stricken.
Plaintiff, in her response to the order to show cause, requests
leave to file “corrected” versions of her stricken filings, i.e., ECF Nos.
4 Addresses for the Clerk’s Offices for the Eastern District of Michigan can be
located here: https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/index.cfm?pageFunction=coContactUs
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 111, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 9 of 11

10
79, 90, 105. (ECF No. 107, PageID.2279.) Plaintiff states that the basis
for this request is “made under the Court’s inherent authority to ensure
a complete docket and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) and 11(c)(2),
which are interpreted to mean that the Rule favors reasonable inquiry
and the opportunity to correct inadvertent errors before sanctions are
imposed.” (ECF No. 107, PageID.2276–2277.) But, as set forth above,
the Court found that Plaintiff’s repeated violations were not mere
“inadvertent errors” but were “tantamount to bad faith” or done
“wantonly.” Metz, 655 F.3d at 489.
Additionally, the time has expired for Plaintiff to file these
documents, i.e., her objection to Judge Stafford’s Order (ECF No. 74),
her objection to Judge Stafford’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
75), and response to Defendant’s objections. (ECF No. 82.) The Court
declines to extend the time for Plaintiff to file these documents because
Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for an extension. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff and Defendant’s Pro Se
Electronic Document Upload privileges are REVOKED for this case.
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 111, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 10 of 11

11
The parties are warned that future violations of the Court’s orders will
result in additional sanctions. Plaintiff’s request for leave to file
“corrected” versions of her stricken filings is DENIED. (ECF No. 107.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 20, 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 November 20, 2025.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 111, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 11 of 11