Herman v. Hawkins et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DALE HERMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
AARON HAWKINS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-10924
Honorable Terrence G. Berg
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER STRIKING
PLAINTIFF’S IMPROPER FILING
(ECF NO. 21)
In April 2025, Plaintiff Dale Herman filed this prisoner civil rights case
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. ECF
No. 1. The Honorable Terrence G. Berg dismissed all of Herman’s claims
except his excessive force claims against Defendants Aaron Hawkins, C.
Tobar, and S. Mohler. ECF No. 7. Judge Berg then referred the case to
the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF
No. 15. Defendants Hawkins, Tobar, and Mohler waived service. ECF No.
18; ECF No. 19; ECF No. 20.
Case 2:25-cv-10924-TGB-EAS ECF No. 27, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 4

On September 16, 2025, Herman filed a two-page document titled,
“Amended Complaint.” ECF No. 21. But the document is not an amended
complaint. The second page of this document states “Enclosed please find
page 1 of my amended complaint in Case No. 25-10924. I have amended
the original to include defendants Snell, Simmans, Morgan, Jane Doe,
Schneider, and Russell to be sued in their individual capacities. The rest of
the complaint remains the same.” 	Id., PageID.76.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 authorizes parties to file various
pleadings (e.g., a complaint or an answer) or a motion that “state[s] with
particularity the grounds for seeking” a court order. But Herman’s filing is
none of these. His filing is not an amended complaint. 	See E.D. Mich. LR
15.1 (“Any amendment to a pleading, whether filed as a matter of course or
upon a motion to amend, must, except by leave of court, reproduce the
entire pleading as amended, and may not incorporate any prior pleading by
reference.”) (emphasis added). Nor is his filing a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint. Because this document is an improper filing, the
Court STRIKES it from the docket.
If Herman wishes to file an amended complaint at this time, then
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) he must file a motion for leave
to amend. And under Local Rule 15.1, Herman must attach a copy of his
Case 2:25-cv-10924-TGB-EAS ECF No. 27, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 4

proposed amended complaint. E.D. Mich. LR 15.1 (“A party who moves to
amend a pleading shall attach the proposed amended pleading to the
motion.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: November 10, 2025
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.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case 2:25-cv-10924-TGB-EAS ECF No. 27, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 4

The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel
of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on November 10, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager
Case 2:25-cv-10924-TGB-EAS ECF No. 27, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 4