Jarrus et al v. Governor of Michigan et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL D. JARRUS
and LINDA JARROUS,
Plaintiffs, 	Case No. 25-11168-FKB-APP
v. 	District Judge F. Kay Behm
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN,
ET AL,
Defendants.
/
OMNIBUS ORDER ADDRESSING ALL PENDING MOTIONS
EXCEPT ECF NOS. 162 AND 163, SETTING DEADLINE TO FILE AN
AMENDED PLEADING, AND STAYING DISCOVERY
Plaintiff Michael D. Jarrus and Linda Jarrous,1 proceeding in pro per, filed
this action on April 23, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) Judge F. Kay Behm referred the
matter to me on May 1, 2025 “for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and
determination of all non−dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
and/or a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).” (ECF No. 20.) After filing their initial complaint,
Plaintiffs began filing what can only be referred to as a deluge of motions,
purported amended pleadings, and so-called “notices,” most of which are improper
1 Despite the similarity to their last names, Plaintiffs appear to spell their names
slightly differently.
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 1 of 20

2
attempts to request relief to which they are not entitled, and all of which have
clogged up the docket and prevented the speedy progression of this case. After
reviewing the docket, the Court now issues the following rulings to resolve all
pending motions and set relevant deadlines.
I. 	Attempts to Amend the Complaint
Two months after initiating this lawsuit, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff then immediately filed an
Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 24.) Because a party is allowed to amend the
complaint once as a matter of course under certain circumstances, which were met
in this case, no motion was required to amend the complaint at that stage and
Plaintiffs earliest motion to amend (ECF No. 23) is DENIED AS MOOT. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). However, the Amended Complaint was properly filed as
a matter of course, and therefore ECF No. 24 is HEREBY RECOGNIZED as the
current operative pleading.
Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a series of notices, motions, and additional
amended complaints, all aimed at amending the pleadings in some fashion, either
by striking portions, adding portions, clarifying portions, or wholly supplanting the
pleadings. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 47, 64, 65, 78, 85, 95, 98, 147, 156). Plaintiffs
motions largely do not comply with the federal and local rules, as they attempt to
amend prior pleadings piecemeal and are unaccompanied by a proposed amended
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 2 of 20

3
pleading, as required under the local rules. The frequent and repetitive motions to
amend or “correct” prior pleadings have created mass confusion on the docket and
the Court therefore DENIES, as written, all pending motions related to amending
or supplanting the pleadings (ECF Nos. 64, 65, 78, 85, 95, 147, 156).
However, the Court is cognizant of Plaintiffs’ pro se status and recognizes
that Plaintiffs are attempting to amend the pleadings to streamline the proceedings.
The Court is also aware that this litigation is still in its infancy. Accordingly, the
Court will sua sponte allow Plaintiffs one final opportunity to amend their
complaint. No motion need be filed, but Plaintiffs will need to file their final,
complete, amended pleading by the Court-imposed deadline.
In making this decision, the Court takes into consideration that, under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a), a party may amend its pleadings at this stage of the proceedings
only after obtaining leave of court. The Rule provides that the court should freely
give leave for a party to amend its pleading “when justice so requires.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Nevertheless, leave to amend ‘should be denied if the
amendment is brought in bad faith, for dilatory purposes, results in undue delay or
prejudice to the opposing party, or would be futile.’” Carson v. U.S. Office of
Special Counsel, 633 F.3d 487, 495 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Crawford v. Roane, 53
F.3d 750, 753 (6th Cir. 1995)).
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 3 of 20

4
Rule 15(a) supports the “principle that cases should be tried on their merits”
and not on technicalities, and thus “assumes ‘a liberal policy of permitting
amendments.’” Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 388 F.3d 930, 937 (6 th Cir. 2004) (quoting
Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 559 (6 th Cir. 1986)). In determining
whether to grant an amendment, the Court considers the reasons set forth in Foman
v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), where the Supreme Court stated that leave
should be freely given, “[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason -
- undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated
failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to
the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of
amendment, etc.” The Court also acknowledges that Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 calls for the
Rules to “be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to
secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding.”
The Court is persuaded that Plaintiffs are attempting in good faith to amend
their complaint and thus will give them one final chance at arriving at their final
pleading. However, this case must proceed, and no further attempts shall be
allowed. Plaintiffs shall file their final amended complaint by Monday,
December 8, 2025. The final amended complaint must comply with Local Rule
15.1, which requires that “[a]ny amendment to a pleading, whether filed as a
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 4 of 20

5
matter of course or upon a motion to amend, must . . . reproduce the entire
pleading as amended, and may not incorporate any prior pleading by reference.”
(Emphasis added). As the Court of Appeals has explained, “[g]enerally, amended
pleadings supersede original pleadings.” Hayward v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 759
F.3d 601, 617 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing 6 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (3d ed.2010)). Thus, when a plaintiff
“file[s] an amendment to his original complaint after it has been served, any such
amended complaint should be drafted to replace the one originally filed[.]” Perry
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-12718, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140287, *3 (E.D.
Mich. Aug. 31, 2017). In other words, in their amended pleadings, Plaintiffs may
not refer back to or “incorporate” prior pleadings or versions/snippets thereof.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ final amended complaint must contain any and all claims
they intend to pursue, and the Court shall not look to any prior pleadings to define
their claims. THIS WILL BE PLAINTIFFS FINAL PLEADING AND NO
FURTHER AMENDMENTS SHALL BE ALLOWED.
In drafting their pleading, Plaintiffs should take note of the instructions
provided above, and the Local and Federal Rules. The form of a pleading is
governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 10. In part, Rule 10 requires that “[a] party must state
its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 5 of 20

6
a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Moreover, the general rules
of pleading provide, “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) 	a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the
claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) 	a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) 	a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the
alternative or different types of relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pleadings are also subject to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, and even pro
se plaintiffs must review and understand their obligations contained therein or risk
sanctions. Throwing “everything but the kitchen sink” into a complaint does not
enhance it; rather, it tends to have the opposite effect. Plaintiffs would be wise to
consult and possibly retain licensed legal counsel (and not merely the Internet, or
worse yet, generative AI, as explained below), or the pro se clinic, before
venturing back into the somewhat complicated (and very much rule-driven) land of
federal court pleading. Plaintiffs must clearly state which claim is asserted against
which Defendant, and articulate the actions of each Defendant that give rise to the
claim. In filing their final amended complaint, Plaintiffs should bear in mind that
“[t]he goal of the complaint is to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bommarito v. Equifax Information
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 6 of 20

7
Serv’s, 340 F.R.D. 566 (E.D. Mich. 2022) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)) (further internal citations omitted).
After the final amended complaint is filed, Defendants may bring the
appropriate motion to test the pleadings under Rule 12. Any motion to dismiss
shall be filed within four weeks of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint.
II. 	Discovery Related Motions
Plaintiffs have also filed motions attempting to expedite discovery or compel
discovery from Defendants. Plaintiffs’ motions are both improper and premature.
They are improper in that, rather than asking the Court to compel responses to
discovery that has already been served, they appear to be asking for discovery
directly in the motions, which is not the correct way to seek discovery. Discovery
requests are not to be filed on the docket, but served on opposing counsel.
Likewise, discovery responses should not be filed directly on the docket. Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 5 provides that initial disclosures under Rule 26(a) and
“requests for documents or tangible things” must not “be filed until they are used
in the proceedings or the court orders filing . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1). See also
E.D. Mich. LR 26.2. Additionally, Plaintiffs appear to be conflating FOIA
requests with discovery requests. Discovery in this case is governed by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and do not generally implicate FOIA requests.
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 7 of 20

8
Furthermore, this case is still in its early stages, which is evident from the
lack of finalized pleadings. Until the initial pleadings have finalized, it is
premature to seek discovery. Generally, “a plaintiff is . . . not entitled to discovery
before a motion to dismiss has been decided, and allowing such discovery
undermines the purpose of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which is ‘to
enable defendants to challenge the legal sufficiency of complaints without
subjecting themselves to discovery.’” Greve v. Bass, No. 3:16-CV-372, 2017 WL
387203, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 27, 2017) (quoting Yuhasz v. Brush Wellman, Inc.,
341 F.3d 559, 566 (6th Cir. 2003)). Thus, until Plaintiffs have filed their final,
amended complaint, and the case proceeds past an answer or resolution of a
motion or motions to dismiss, the Court ORDERS that all discovery is hereby
STAYED, pending further notice from the Court.
Relatedly, many of Plaintiffs’ filings seek to “supplement the record” with
various forms of “evidence” (See ECF Nos. 6, 15, 16, 64, 81, 86). Generally, there
is no reason to be filing any type of evidence directly on the docket. The Eastern
District of Michigan Local Rules state that a party “may not file discovery material
specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1) . . . .” E.D. Mich. LR 26.2. Circumstances in
which parties may file material (such as recordings) with the Court include “when
it provides factual support for a motion, response or reply.” Id., 26.2(1) (emphasis
added). And in such circumstances, “The party or other person relying on the
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 8 of 20

9
material must file only the germane portion of it as an exhibit or attachment to the
motion, response, or reply.” Id. Parties are not entitled to simply file items that
they perceive as being helpful to their case on the docket just to add them to the
record. Evidence will be submitted, at the appropriate time, during trial or in order
to support a motion. Records may not simply be plowed into the Court’s docket as
freestanding exhibits; they must normally be attached to a pleading, motion or
brief, in support of the same, and explain how they support it. Fed. R. Civ. P.
10(c); E.D. Mich. LR 5.1(d). All motions simply seeking to file evidence on the
docket, or attempting to insert records into the docket, will be denied. Free-
standing exhibits or declarations WILL BE STRICKEN.
Further, Plaintiffs have filed at least two motions for sanctions for spoliation
of evidence. (ECF Nos. 8, 133.) It is difficult to imagine how any such motion
can be ripe prior to the start of any discovery. More importantly, however, until
the pleadings have been finalized, the Court cannot assess the relevance or
necessity of any evidence or its purported spoliation.
Accordingly, all pending motions tangential to discovery, seeking any form
of discovery or discovery sanctions, or attempting to plow evidence into the record
are hereby DENIED. (ECF Nos. 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 39, 64, 81, 86, 133.)
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 9 of 20

10
III. 	Motions Mooted by Subsequent Events
Plaintiffs seek various forms of injunctive relief. Motions for preliminary or
final injunctive relief must be grounded in the relevant pleadings. Because the
pleadings are not yet finalized, and indeed each motion is based on a different
pleading, all motions seeking injunctive relief (ECF No. 14, 119) are DEEMED
PREMATURE AND MOOT and the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to
ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATE THEM WITHOUT RULING AND
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Additionally, pending before the Court are a series of motions related to
previous pleadings or filings that are no longer relevant. Plaintiffs filed motions to
“expedite consideration” of certain motions. (ECF No. 12, 116, 117.) These
motions are being ruled upon in this Order, and thus there is no longer any motion
to “expedite.” Additionally, it is not for Plaintiffs, or any other litigant, to set the
Court’s priority for ruling on motions. Motions to expedite, particularly when filed
on dockets which have been inundated with countless unnecessary and meritless
motions, will not propel the Court to prioritize Plaintiffs’ case. It may have the
opposite effect, as the Court has hundreds of other civil and criminal cases
requiring its attention, which cannot be set aside to deal with an avalanche of
motions and other non-motions filings in this one case. The squeaky wheel does
not necessarily get the grease. It is for the Court—not Plaintiffs—to internally
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 10 of 20

11
prioritize matters. Plaintiff’s motions to expedite (ECF No. 12, 116, 117) are
DENIED.
Plaintiffs also filed motions related to previous motions. Plaintiffs filed
motions to “correct” portions of their previous filings, or strike portions of their
previous filings (ECF No. 96, 147, 149). As a general rule, litigants do not get
repeated “do-overs” to continuously edit their filings after they have been filed. In
any event, all of Plaintiffs’ pending motions have essentially been mooted by the
Court’s decision to allow Plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended pleading.
Thus, the motions to strike or “correct” previous filings (ECF No. 96, 147, 149)
are DENIED.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike a motion that Defendants filed asking for a
modest extension of time to file a response brief. (ECF No. 106.) There was no
legitimate basis to strike Defendants’ motion. If Plaintiffs oppose a motion, they
must file a response brief. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s order granting the extension. (ECF No. 108.) Under the Local Rules,
motions for reconsideration “of non-final orders are disfavored.” E.D. Mich. LR
7(h)(2) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs have presented no valid basis to grant
reconsideration of a routine, ministerial order of the Court, let alone shown any
kind of mistake by the Court. See E.D. Mich. LR 7(h)(2)(A). And, these motions,
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 11 of 20

12
too, are moot in light of subsequent events. The motion to strike (ECF No. 106),
along with the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 108), are DENIED.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for service of the first amended complaint (ECF No.
25), a motion for alternate service (ECF No. 52), a motion to file proof of service
(ECF No 103), and a motion for leave to exceed the page limit in their response to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is also moot (ECF No. 79.) All four motions are
now moot and are DENIED. Plaintiffs should note that no motion for service need
be filed for service of the anticipated, final, amended pleading.
Plaintiffs recently filed a motion to treat the motion for preliminary
injunction as unopposed. (ECF No. 164.) Because the Court has mooted the
preliminary injunction motion, this motion is DENIED.
Finally, Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed against the non-stayed Defendants
(ECF No. 165) is DENIED, as the Court has now outlined how this case will
proceed.
IV. 	Motions Alleging Illegal or Improper Behavior of Defendants
Plaintiffs have also filed a number of motions which contain accusations of
illegal behavior by Defendants. Some of these motions can essentially be
characterized as motions to enforce laws and rules, and some of the motions ask
the Court to recognize alleged illegal behavior and take certain action. All of these
motions are without merit, and the Court will detail them briefly.
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 12 of 20

13
First, on the same day they initiated this lawsuit, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion
for Protective Order to Prevent Retaliation, Harassment, and Misuse of Authority
During Litigation,” (ECF No. 5), which asks the Court to issue an order prohibiting
Defendants from engaging in a vast list of improper and illegal behavior. The
Court does not issue orders, particularly filed prospectively and before any action
has occurred in the case, requiring litigants to adhere to laws and rules they are
already required to follow. The motion seeks redundant relief, that was wholly
unsupported at such an early stage in the litigation.
On the same day, Plaintiffs also filed a “Motion to Refer Defendants for
Criminal Investigation Based on Evidence Tampering, Civil Rights Violations, and
Conspiracy.” (ECF No. 7.) 	The Court does not have authority to initiate a
criminal investigation in this civil case, and this motion is without merit.
Similarly, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion to Compel Defendants to Recognize and
Comply with State Court Order Restoring Firearm Rights.” (ECF No. 9.) The
Court is unclear under what authority Plaintiffs brought this motion but, at best, it
has the tone of a motion seeking a preliminary or final injunction, which the Court
will not consider until the pleadings are finalized in this matter.
On July 17, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion to Strike References to State
Court Proceedings,” in which they argue that Defendants’ references to state court
events are “immaterial, impertinent, and legally irrelevant” (ECF No. 57,
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 13 of 20

14
PageID.1161-1162.) The Court disagrees, and finds Plaintiffs’ purported outrage
to be perplexing and somewhat hypocritical considering the countless allegations
of wrongdoing they allege against Defendants related to the state court
proceedings. In any event, references to matters of public record, so long as they
are not matters under seal, are not improper. See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 201(b);
Granader v. Pub. Bank, 417 F.2d 75, 82 (6th Cir. 1969) (citing cases) (“Federal
courts may take judicial notice of proceedings in other courts of record.”). The
Court finds no basis to Plaintiffs’ motion.
For these reasons Plaintiffs motions regarding Defendants’ purported
behavior (ECF Nos. 5, 7, 9, 57) are DENIED.
V. 	Improper “Notices”
The Court notes that Plaintiffs continuously file documents on the docket
labeled as “Notices.” (See, E.g., ECF Nos. 33, 40, 42, 44, 54, 69, 70, 74, 80, 101,
118, 120, 136). These “notices” range from attempts to update the Court regarding
a related state court proceeding, veiled motions seeking some sort of nebulous
relief, and attempts to insert records or other purported facts onto the docket. Such
notices are improper in form and clog the docket unnecessarily, thereby delaying
attention to those motions which may have been properly filed.
Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to cease filing “notices,” unless otherwise
specifically allowed by the Court or local or federal rule, e.g., notice of change of
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 14 of 20

15
address under E.D. Mich. 11.2. None of the currently-filed “notices” will be
considered by the Court and any future improper “notices” will be stricken.
VI. 	Use of AI technology
It appears to the Court that Plaintiffs may be utilizing Artificial Intelligence
(“AI”) technology. 	(See, e.g., ECF No. 63, PageID.1256, referencing
“ChatGPT”.) That is a bad idea in one very real and important sense: Plaintiffs
will be held responsible for the content of their filings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11,
including the accuracy of all facts and law, regardless of whether they used
generative artificial intelligence to assist them. The Court will not accept AI as an
excuse for inaccuracies and will hold Plaintiffs (and all counsel) responsible for
whatever filings appear with their signatures. As Judge Berg recently held:
AI programs “are based on complex mathematical systems that learn their
skills by analyzing enormous amounts of digital data. They do not — and
cannot — decide what is true and what is false. Indeed, at times, they just
make stuff up—a phenomenon some A.I. researchers call hallucinations.”
Cade Metz & Karen Weise, A.I. Is Getting More Powerful, but Its
Hallucinations Are Getting Worse, N.Y. Times (May 6, 2025),
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/05/technology/ai-hallucinations-chatgpt-
google.html. As such, some courts have rejected the use of such AI programs
in legal pleadings “out of hand”. J.G. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 719 F.
Supp. 3d 293, 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
Hunt v. Morissette, No. 2-24-CV-12947-TGB-APP, 2025 WL 1660358, at *1
(E.D. Mich. June 11, 2025). While the Court will not directly prohibit Plaintiffs
from utilizing generative AI, the Court STRONGLY suggests that Plaintiffs do not
attempt to utilize it and should certainly never rely upon it. Indeed, this Court
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 15 of 20

16
recently sanctioned a pro se litigant $200 per misrepresentation or AI-generated
“phantom” or “hallucinated” citation in Ali v. IT People Corp., Inc., No. 2:25-CV-
10815, 2025 WL 2682622, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 19, 2025). Plaintiffs are hereby
DIRECTED to carefully read Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 in its entirety and to be on notice
that any misrepresentation or AI-generated “phantom” citation will be
sanctionable, per violation.
VII. 	Defendants’ motions to dismiss
Defendants have filed motions to dismiss aimed at various iterations of
Plaintiffs’ complaints. (ECF Nos. 28 and 66.) Because the Court will allow
Plaintiffs one final attempt to amend their complaint, the dismissal motions are
now moot. As things stand, an attempt to analyze the legal sufficiency of the
pleadings would be a frustrating and futile effort, as the pleadings have been a
moving target; and, as explained above, one final re-set is warranted. Defendants
will be allowed to bring a timely motion challenging any pleading after Plaintiffs
submit their final amended complaint. In the meantime, Defendants’ motions to
dismiss (ECF Nos. 28 and 66) are DEEMED MOOT and the Clerk of the Court is
DIRECTED to ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATE THEM WITHOUT
RULING AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 16 of 20

17
VIII. Defendants’ motion for sanctions
Defendants have filed a motion for sanctions, taking issue with Plaintiffs’
multiple improper filings, frivolous motions, use of AI, alleged misrepresentations,
failure to seek concurrence before filing motions, and general conduct in the
prosecution of this action. (ECF No. 140.) Most of the issues raised in
Defendants’ motion have been addressed by the Court in this order, and the motion
is therefore DENIED AS MOOT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Court is not unsympathetic to the points raised by Defendants, but will
decline to issue sanctions at this point. However, the Court has serious concerns
with the manner in which Plaintiffs have pursued this action. Inundating the Court,
and Defendants, with countless motions, notices, and amended pleadings has
dramatically delayed the progress of this lawsuit, cluttered the docket, and wasted
the time of both the Court and Defendants. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to carefully
read Defendants’ motion, this Order, the Undersigned’s Practice Guidelines, and
the federal and local rules. Compliance with these rules is expected, even from pro
se litigants. See Mitchell v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99599, at
*5 (Mar. 31, 2006 W.D. Mich.) (“[A] pro se litigant is not entitled to special
consideration with respect to straightforward procedural requirements that a lay
person can comprehend as easily as a lawyer”) (citing Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d
108, 109-110 (6th Cir.1991)).
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 17 of 20

18
In this Order, the Court has attempted to “clear the deck” and give the
litigants a fresh start at progressing this lawsuit in an organized and proper manner.
Further filings that violate the local or federal rules, or this Order, WILL NOT BE
TOLERATED.
IX. 	Pro Se Clinical Assistance
Plaintiffs must familiarize themselves with the Federal and the Local Rules.
Plaintiffs’ pleadings must be in 14-point font, including the footnotes, and their
filings shall be double-spaced and include page numbers. Plaintiffs are specifically
DIRECTED to read and study Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, and to follow
the requirements stated therein. All discovery is stayed at this point, but should the
case move forward, Plaintiffs will be expected to properly follow the Federal and
Local Rules. The Court further provides Plaintiff with this information:
A. The rules, and additional help for pro se litigants, can be accessed
online via
https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/index.cfm?pageFunction=proSe
B. All parties are required to adhere to Judge Patti’s Practice
Guidelines, which can be accessed at
https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/index.cfm?pageFunction=chamber
s&judgeid=51
C. There is a federal pro se legal assistance clinic operated in the
Courthouse by the University of Detroit-Mercy Law School. To
determine if you are eligible for assistance, you may contact the
Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Clinic at (313) 234-2690 or at
proseclinic@udmercy.edu.
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 18 of 20

19
X. 	Summary
For the reasons stated above, the following motions are DENIED: ECF
Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 23, 25, 39, 52, 57, 64, 65, 78, 79, 81, 85,
86, 95, 96, 103, 106, 108, 116, 117, 133, 140, 147, 149, 156, 164, and 165.
The following motions are DEEMED MOOT and the Clerk of the Court is
DIRECTED to ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATE THEM WITHOUT
RULING AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE: ECF No. 14, 28, 66, 119.
Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file their final amended complaint by Monday,
December 8, 2025.
After the final amended complaint is filed, Defendants may bring the
appropriate motion to test the pleadings under Rule 12. Any motion to dismiss
(or, alternatively, an answer) shall be filed within four weeks of Plaintiffs’
amended complaint.
All discovery is HEREBY STAYED pending further order of the Court.
Plaintiffs shall focus on finalizing and submitting their final amended
pleading and cease filing unnecessary motions and notices. Going forward,
Defendants are DIRECTED not to file any response to any motion unless ordered
by the Court. The Court will first review a motion to determine if a response is
necessary before Defendants expend time and money to draft a response.
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 19 of 20

20
Finally, the Court notes that Judge Behm recently granted a motion to stay
and stayed the case as to Defendants Heldreth and Kirkpatrick ONLY. (ECF No.
161.) Nothing in that stay prohibits Plaintiffs from filing an amended pleading.
Until further order of the Court, those two Defendants are exempt from any
requirement to respond to Plaintiffs’ final amended pleading.2
IT IS SO ORDERED. 3
Dated: November 7, 2025
_________________________
ANTHONY P. PATTI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2 This order addresses all pending motions with the exception of ECF Nos. 162 and
163, which are motions for reconsideration or to vacate or modify Judge Behm’s
October 28, 2025 Text-Order, which are pending before Judge Behm.
3 The attention of the parties is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a
period of fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this order within
which to file objections for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
Case 4:25-cv-11168-FKB-APP ECF No. 168, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 20 of 20