NICHOLAS DAVID PAUL SEDLOCK V 36TH DISTRICT COURT

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan
ORDER
NICHOLAS DAVID PAUL SEDLOCK V 36TH DISTRICT COURT
Docket No. 382319
Michael F. Gadola, Chief Judge, acting under MCR 7.203(F)(1), orders:
The motion to waive fees and complaint for superintending control are DISMISSED,
without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. Insofar as the complaint purportedly states a claim for
“mandamus” against a lower court, that claim actually sounds in superintending control. See MCR
3.302(C) (“A superintending control order replaces . . . the writ of mandamus when directed to a lower
court or tribunal.”); Adams v Adams, 276 Mich App 704, 710-711; 742 NW2d 399 (2007) (“It is well
settled that the gravamen of an action is determined by reading the complaint as a whole, and by looking
beyond mere procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim.”). And because plaintiff seeks
superintending control over a district court—i.e., a trial court over which this Court lacks direct appellate
jurisdiction—this Court lacks jurisdiction over the instant action. See MCR 7.203(C)(1).
September 8, 2026

-- 1 of 1 --