Hardy v. Genesee County Cmty. Action Resource Dep't, et al. (1), No. 24-11190 (Jan. 28, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Hardy v. Genesee County Community Action Resource Department, et al. (1)
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Jan. 28, 2026
Disposition
Motion Denied
GREGORY HARDY, Plaintiff, v. GENESSE COUNTY COMMUNITY..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 226572Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, E.D.Michigan, Southern Division.GREGORY HARDY, Plaintiff,v.GENESSE COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTIONRESOURCE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.Case No. 24-11190|Filed 01/28/2026Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citationreferences that are incorrect or do not actually exist. Theseinvalid citations appeared in the original court opinion andhave been preserved as written since they are part of theofficial record. Any links to these invalid citations have beenremoved.Honorable Linda V. ParkerAttorneys and Law FirmsGregory Hardy, Flint, MI, Pro Se.Bennet J. Bush, Genesee County Corporation Counsel, Flint,MI, for Defendants.ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS,STRIKING TWO BRIEFS, AND WARNINGHIM OF SANCTIONS (ECF NOS. 59, 60, 70, 71)ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD United States Magistrate JudgeA.*1 Plaintiff Gregory Hardy, proceeding pro se and in formapauperis, sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Honorable LindaV. Parker referred the matter to the undersigned for all pretrialmatters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 7. The Courtnow denies Hardy's motions to determine the sufficiencyof defendants' answers to his requests for admission and tocompel discovery from defendants. ECF No. 59; ECF No. 60.The Court also STRIKES Hardy's reply briefs. ECF Nos. 70and 71.B.This is one of three pending cases filed by Hardy that hasbeen referred to the undersigned for pretrial proceedings. InHardy v. Whitaker, this Court recently recommended thatthe case be involuntarily dismissed under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 41(b), and that Hardy be enjoined from filingfuture actions. Case No. 24-cv-11270, ECF No. 211. Hardyhad wasted the resources of the Court and opposing counselby flooding the docket with frivolous motions and failing tofollow court rules and orders. Id.For example, Hardy filed repetitive and unauthorizedsupplements to motions, including motions to compeldiscovery and to determine the sufficiency of defendants'answers. Id., PageID.2388-2389. Even after being warnedthat he had no right to file supplemental briefs without leaveof court, Hardy continued to do so. Id., PageID.2406. Hardysubmitted briefs with fake citations and with no legal analysisto guide the requested determination. Id., PageID.2395; CaseNo. 24-cv-11270, PageID.1481. “Hardy's failure to learn andfollow basic court rules is notable” because he “has beenfiling lawsuits since 1998, and a Bloomberg Law searchshows that he has filed 42 civil cases in this district and inthe Western District of Michigan.” No. 24-cv-11270, ECF No.211, PageID.2406.Hardy's pattern of filing frivolous and repetitive motions, andfailing to follow court rules, continues in this case. In July2024, Hardy filed a frivolous request for a clerk's entry ofdefault even though this Court had granted defendants anextension of time to answer. ECF No. 16; ECF No. 14; ECFNo. 17. Hardy filed two more frivolous requests for a clerk'sentry of default after defendants filed their answer; thosemotions were also denied. ECF No. 49; ECF No. 50; ECFNo. 51; ECF No. 52. He continues to file supplemental briefswithout leave of court despite being instructed again here notto file extra briefs without leave of Court. ECF No. 25; ECFNo. 31; ECF No. 66; ECF No. 70; ECF No. 71.Hardy has moved for judgment on the pleadings (MJOP)under Rule 12(c), arguing that the Court “must accept allfactual allegations in the complaint as true.” ECF No. 58,PageID.393 (emphasis added). But when considering a Rule12(c) motion, the Court must accept as true “all well-pleadedmaterial allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party.”Moderwell v. Cuyahoga Cty., 997 F.3d 653, 659 (6th Cir.
GREGORY HARDY, Plaintiff, v. GENESSE COUNTY COMMUNITY..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.22021) (cleaned up, emphasis added). Despite filing dozens oflawsuits over decades, Hardy does not understand the basicrules of civil procedure.*2 And Hardy filed two reply briefs to the MJOP. ECF No.70; ECF No. 71. His filing of an extra reply brief violated E.D.Mich. LR 7.1(d)(1), which authorizes only a response briefand a reply brief to a motion. Acceptance Indem. Ins. Co. v.Shepard, No. 19-cv-12777, 2021 WL 1087416, at *7 (E.D.Mich. Mar. 22, 2021) (defendant violated “Local Rule 7.1(d)by filing more than one brief to accompany her Motion to SetAside Default.”)Hardy's first reply brief is mostly singled-spaced in anapparent effort to circumvent the seven-page limit, and heimproperly included an unrelated motion for sanctions. SeeE.D Mich. LR 5.1(a)(2) (requiring papers to be double-spaced); LR 7.1(i) (a motion “must not be combined witha response or reply” and “papers filed in violation of thisrule will be stricken.”); LR 7.1(d)(3)(B) (limiting reply briefsto seven pages, “including footnotes and signatures”). Andalthough he is proceeding pro se, Hardy makes frivolousrequests in various filings that he be awarded the “attorney'sfees” he has incurred. ECF No. 60, PageID.441; ECF No. 70,PageID.637.Hardy's frivolous filings waste the Court's and opposingcounsels' resources. “Every paper filed with the Clerk ofthis court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requiressome portion of the institution's limited resources. A part ofthe court's responsibility is to see that these resources areallocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.”Moore v. Hillman, No. 4:06-CV-43, 2006 WL 1313880, at *4(W.D. Mich. May 12, 2006). Hardy's pro se status does notgive him license “to clog the judicial machinery with meritlesslitigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets.”Bradley v. Wallrad, No. 1:06 cv 246, 2006 WL 1133220, at*1 n. 2 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 27, 2006) (cleaned up). Hardy isWARNED that his continued failure to follow proceduralrules or orders, or the filing of more frivolous motions, couldresult in sanctions—including a recommendation that thisaction be involuntarily dismissed under Rule 41(b).C.Hardy moves to determine the sufficiency of defendants'answers to his requests for admission under Federal Ruleof Civil Procedure 36(a)(6). ECF No. 59. He attachesdefendants' responses to his 30 requests for admission,asserting that the responses are “evasive, incomplete, or basedon an improper objection.” Id., PageID.411.But Hardy does not individually address the requests ordefendants' responses and he provides no legal analysis toguide a determination of whether defendants' responses orobjections are sufficient. Hardy apparently expects the Courtto supply the legal analysis for him, but requiring a court to“take his factual assertions, and mold them into a plausiblelegal argument...is beyond the purview of the court's judicialrole and can result in the subversion of the court's neutrality.”In re McFadden, 477 B.R. 686, 690 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2012);see also Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 226 (2004) (“Requiringdistrict courts to advise pro se litigants...would underminedistrict judges' role as impartial decisionmakers.”).And because Hardy fails to support his requests for relief withlegal analysis, he waives any right to the requested relief. SeeMcPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995-996 (6th Cir. 1997)(“Issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner” are “deemedwaived. It is not sufficient for a party to mention a possibleargument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to...putflesh on its bones.” (cleaned up)).*3 Making matters worse, Hardy's brief includes fakecitations. ECF No. 59, PageID.413 (citing “Moore v. FordMotor co.,755 F.2d 510, 513 (6th Cir. 1985)” and “Gibbsv. Wright, 2020 WL 1877661, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 15,2020)”). The Court suspects that the fake citations result fromHardy using generative artificial intelligence (AI).[T]he use of generative AI whendrafting legal filings is a very riskypractice, as pro se litigants andattorneys are still subject to therequirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2) with respect to pleadings, motionsand other documents they sign andsubmit to the Court; even in theabsence of bad faith, Rule 11 sanctionsfor use of AI generated phantom casesmay be warranted.Smart v. Pro. Grp., No. 4:25-cv-11833, 2025 WL 3091139, at*5 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 5, 2025).
GREGORY HARDY, Plaintiff, v. GENESSE COUNTY COMMUNITY..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3D.Hardy moves to compel defendants to produce documentsresponsive to his request for production of documents. ECFNo. 60, PageID.437. Hardy states that defendants have“submitted some” but not all the documents he requested. Id.,PageID.438.Hardy's motion again includes fake citations. Id., PageID.440(citing “Jones v. Tenn. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 985 F3d 544,550 (6th Cir. 2021)” and “McCarthy v. Ameritech Publ'g Inc.,763 F3d 619, 629 (6th Cir. 2014)”).And Hardy's motion fails to comply with the local rules. E.D.Mich. LR 37.2 (“Any discovery motion filed pursuant to Fed.R. Civ. P. 26 through 37, shall include, in the motion itselfor in an attached memorandum, a verbatim recitation of eachinterrogatory, request, answer, response, and objection whichis the subject of the motion or a copy of the actual discoverydocument which is the subject of the motion.”); see alsoAnderson v. Furst, No. 17-cv-12676, 2018 WL 4407750, at *2(E.D. Mich. Sept. 17, 2018) (denying motion that “fail[ed] toeither recite [verbatim] Defendants' responses and objectionsin his motion or attach a copy of Defendants' responses to hismotion, as expressly required by E.D. Mich. LR 37.2.”).E.The Court DENIES Hardy's motion to determine thesufficiency of defendants' answers (ECF No 59), DENIES hismotion to compel discovery (ECF No. 60), and STRIKESECF No. 70 and ECF No. 71.NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONSWithin 14 days of being served with this order, any party mayfile objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ.P. 72(a). The district judge may sustain an objection only ifthe order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. §636. “When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge'sruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains infull force and effect unless and until it is stayed by themagistrate judge or a district judge.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEThe undersigned certifies that this document was servedon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via theCourt's ECF System to their email or First Class U.S. mailaddresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing onJanuary 28, 2026.DAVON ALLEN Case ManagerAll CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 226572End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access