Carre v. Nutton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION SUSAN R. CARRE, Case No. 25-11628 Plaintiff, Honorable Matthew F. Leitman v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford COLETTE NUTTON, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EQUAL ELECTRONIC SERVICE (ECF NO. 56)

Acting pro se, Plaintiff Susan R. Carre sues multiple defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Honorable Matthew F. Leitman referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

ECF No. 48.

Carre moves the Court to issue a case management order that “requires all parties to provide electronic service to Plaintiff.” ECF No. 56, 981. Carre notes that defense counsel is using the Court’s electronic filing system and contends that she is disadvantaged because she is “without ECF access.” Id., PageID.982.

The Court DENIES this motion as MOOT because, as a pro se plaintiff who is not incarcerated, Carre may apply to become a pro se e- filer. (See attached “Non-Attorney (Pro Se) E-filing Account Request” instructions).

In her motion, Carre leveled unfounded accusations against defendants that exposed her lack of understanding about the electronic filing process. Though she is proceeding pro se, Carre “is required to follow the law. In particular, a willfully unrepresented plaintiff volitionally assumes the risks and accepts the hazards which accompany self- representation.” Graham-Humphreys v. Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, Inc., 209 F.3d 552, 561 (6th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original). Carre must make a reasonable inquiry before filing papers in this Court to ensure that “her legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). Carre is WARNED that she may face sanctions, up to and including the dismissal of her case, if she continues filing frivolous papers in this Court. s/Elizabeth A. Stafford ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD Dated: August 21, 2025 United States Magistrate Judge 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 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 August 21, 2025.

s/Davon Allen DAVON ALLEN Case Manager