Hardy v. Jones, No. 25-12718 (Mar. 23, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Gregory Hardy v. K. Jones, et al.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Mar. 23, 2026
GREGORY HARDY, Plaintiff, v. K. JONES, et al., Defendants., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 801202Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, E.D.Michigan, Southern Division.GREGORY HARDY, Plaintiff,v.K. JONES, et al., Defendants.Case No. 25-12718|Filed 03/23/2026Honorable Robert J. WhiteAttorneys and Law FirmsGregory Hardy, Flint, MI, Pro Se.Bennet J. Bush, Genesee County Corporation Counsel, Flint,MI, for Defendants Bennett, Jay Parker, Danielle Macko,Fuller.ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'SMOTION AND GIVING A FINALWARNING OF SANCTIONS (ECF NO. 33)ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD United States Magistrate Judge*1 Plaintiff Gregory Hardy, proceeding pro se and in formapauperis, sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referredto the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).1 ECF No. 15.Hardy moved in February 2026 to consolidate this casewith two others he filed. ECF No. 33. He filed the samemotion in the other cases. Hardy v. Whitaker, 24-11270, ECFNo.218; Hardy v. GCCARD, Case No. 24-11190, ECF No.77. In support of those requests, Hardy's motion states that, in“Berndt v. Tennessee, 796 f.2d 879, 882 (6th Cir. 1986), theSixth Circuit held that when a court has ‘reason to believe’ alitigant suffers from mental issues, it is an abuse of discretionto dismiss for failure to follow rules without first addressingcapacity.” ECF No. 33, PageID.373. But the Berndt opinionneither includes the quoted language “reason to believe” noraddresses the dismissal of cases brought by litigants withmental issues.Hardy's brief also states that, under “United States v. Frazier,584 F.2d 790, 794 (6th Cir. 1978), a judge may not actas an ‘amateur psychologist.’ ” ECF No. 33, PageID.374.But again, the quoted phrase “amateur psychologist” appearsnowhere in the Frazier opinion, and that criminal case doesnot address the issues raised in Hardy's motion.Thus, Hardy's motion to consolidate includes fake quotations,likely the result of him using regenerative artificialintelligence (AI). And the motion was filed the month afterthis Court recommended in a report and recommendation(R&R) that Hardy be sanctioned, reasoning in part that heused fake citations in a motion for summary judgment. CaseNo. 24-cv-11270, ECF No. 211, PageID.2395-2396; Hardy v.Whitaker, ___ F.R.D. ___ 2026 WL 575225, at *8 (E.D. Mich.Mar. 2, 2026) (combined R&R and opinion adopting theR&R). The R&R explained, “Courts and opposing counselare [ ] burdened by the careless use of AI by pro se filers.”Hardy v. Whitaker, ___ F.R.D. ___ 2026 WL 575225, at *10.Hardy apologized for his “inclusion of inaccurate citationsgenerated by an AI tool” in his objection to the R&R.Case No. 24-cv-11270, ECF No. 213, PageID.2430. But herepeated the offense in his motion to consolidate.More recently, the Sixth Circuit emphasized that the “evena single fake case can be sanctionable” and that “citingfake cases can harm the reputation of judges and courtswhose names are falsely invoked as authors of the bogusopinions and the reputation of a party attributed with fictionalconduct.” Whiting City of Athens Tennessee, ___ F. 4th ___,2026 WL 710568, at *4 (6th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026) (cleanedup). Thus, district courts may sanction the misuse of AIunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and their inherentauthority. Id. at *5.Hardy's misuse of AI in his motion to consolidate is not hisonly repeat transgression. The R&R in Hardy v. Whitaker alsodiscussed how he had filed umpteen frivolous motions andclogged the docket with improper filings. Hardy v. Whitaker,___ F.R.D. ___ 2026 WL 575225, at *4-*7, *12-*13. Earlierthis month, this Court struck three of Hardy's improper filingsin this case. ECF No. 42 (striking ECF No. 35; ECF No.40; ECF No. 41). And because Hardy's motion to consolidatefalsely claimed that this Court has a duty to address his mentalcapacity, the motion is frivolous.*2 Thus, the Court STRIKES Hardy's motion (ECF No.33) and gives him a FINAL WARNING that this Courtwill recommend that sanctions that include the involuntary
GREGORY HARDY, Plaintiff, v. K. JONES, et al., Defendants., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2dismissal of this case be imposed if he misrepresents casesor includes fake citations in future briefs or motions, or if hefiles improper documents.IT IS SO ORDERED.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 onMarch 23, 2026.CAITLIN SHRUM Case ManagerAll CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 801202Footnotes1The Court recommended dismissing all but the excessive force and Fourth Amendment claims against fourFlint police officers. ECF No. 32. The report and recommendation remains pending. Id.End 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