1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DARNELL BROWN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:14-cv-14350 

v. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman 

 Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

NICOLE CARTER, et al.,

 Defendants. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER

 Plaintiff Darnell Brown, who is proceeding without the assistance of 

counsel, filed his Complaint and application to proceed without prepayment of fees 

on November 12, 2014, asserting claims under Title VII. (DE 1, 2.) On November 

13, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application and directed the United States 

Marshal to effect service over Defendants Nicole Carter, Pellumb Sulaj, and 

Dushna Popovski. (DE 4.) To date, only Defendant Sulaj has been served and 

appeared in the case. 

 On January 21, 2015, Defendant Sulaj, who is also proceeding without the 

assistance of counsel, filed his Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (DE 12.)

Defendant Sulaj, however, neglected to serve a copy of his Answer on Plaintiff.

2:14-cv-14350-APP Doc # 15 Filed 03/16/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 44
2

On February 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant’s Answer, indicating 

that the Answer was “without merit” because it was not properly served. (DE 13.)

In addition, Plaintiff disputes the information contained in Defendant Sulaj’s 

Answer and provides screenshots of text messages between Plaintiff and 

Defendant Sulaj. (Id.) On March 6, 2015, Defendant Sulaj filed an Answer to 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery, in which he asks the Court to deny Plaintiff’s 

Motion and sanction Plaintiff for filing a frivolous motion. (DE 14.) Defendant 

Sulaj also includes a “Proof of Service,” indicating that he mailed a copy of the 

instant Answer to Plaintiff. (Id.) A review of the Court’s docket, however, 

indicates that Plaintiff did not file a Motion for Discovery. As best as the Court 

can discern, Plaintiff either served a Motion on Defendant Sulaj without filing it 

with the Court or Defendant Sulaj is responding in some way to Plaintiff’s 

Response to Defendant’s Answer.

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of the various filings and 

deficiencies in this case to date. As a preliminary matter, all parties before the 

Court are required to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 

Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan.

 First, it appears that Defendant Sulaj did not serve a copy of his Answer on 

Plaintiff, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(a) and Eastern District 

of Michigan Local Rule 5.1.1(b). Rule 5(a) requires that pleadings filed after the 

2:14-cv-14350-APP Doc # 15 Filed 03/16/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 45
3

complaint, as well as any written motion, must be served on all other parties unless 

the Court orders otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(B) &(D). Here, Defendant 

Sulaj did not include a proof of service on his Answer and Plaintiff was not aware 

that Defendant Sulaj filed his Answer until he called the Clerk of Court. However, 

the Court holds pro se pleadings to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings 

drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Furthermore, 

Defendant Sulaj’s later filing contained a Proof of Service, thereby indicating that 

he now understands this requirement. (DE 14.) Accordingly, for purposes of 

making clear that Defendant Sulaj is on notice of the requirement to serve 

pleadings and of the necessity of filing proofs of service with the Court, the Court 

will not strike Defendant Sulaj’s Answer. (DE 12.) The Court will strike any 

future pleadings or motions that fail to comply with the service requirement. 

 Second, Plaintiff’s “Response to Defendant[’]s Answer” is improper under 

the Federal Rules. Pursuant to Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a 

party may file a reply to an answer only when the court orders such a reply. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7). The Court ordered no such pleading in this case. However, 

because Plaintiff’s Reply was filed to notify the Court that Defendant Sulaj failed 

to serve him with a copy of his Answer, the Court will not strike Plaintiff’s 

improperly-filed Response. (DE 13.) Any future Responses to Defendants’ 

Answers, however, will be stricken as improper.

2:14-cv-14350-APP Doc # 15 Filed 03/16/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 46
4

 Finally, the Court will strike Defendant Sulaj’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Discovery. (DE 14.) There is no Motion for Discovery filed on the Court’s 

docket. In addition, the Court has not yet held a scheduling conference with the 

parties to address the scope of discovery and deadlines. Pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 26(C), discovery may not begin until after the Court’s 

scheduling conference. When all of the Defendants are served and have appeared, 

the Court will hold such a scheduling conference. Furthermore, pursuant to Local 

Rule 26.2, a party may only file discovery material, including requests for 

discovery, in limited circumstances which do not exist in this case. Accordingly, 

Defendant Sulaj’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery will be 

STRICKEN. (DE 14.) The parties are instructed to comply with the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for all future discovery issues.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 16, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2:14-cv-14350-APP Doc # 15 Filed 03/16/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 47
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on March 16, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

(313) 234-5200 

2:14-cv-14350-APP Doc # 15 Filed 03/16/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 48