Sedore v. Gonzalez

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SCOTT SEDORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERYL GONZALEZ,
Defendant.
/
Case No. 4:25-cv-11779
F. Kay Behm
United States District Judge
Patricia T. Morris
United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS (ECF No. 26)
I. 	Introduction
Plaintiff Scott Sedore brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged
violations of his constitutional rights. 	(ECF No. 1). 	Defendant filed a motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 23), and Plaintiff filed the instant motion, seeking sanctions
against Defendant’s attorney for improper procedure in the motion to dismiss. (ECF
No. 26). For the reasons explained below, the motion will be DENIED.
II. 	Analysis
On October 15, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 23). In
it, defense counsel stated, “Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 concurrence in this motion
was not sought as Plaintiff is an incarcerated individual proceeding in pro se.” (Id.
at PageID.112). 	The motion also contained a signed proof of service indicating
Case 4:25-cv-11779-FKB-PTM ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 5

2
counsel “ha[s] mailed by US Postal Service the document to the Plaintiff at his
respective address.” (Id. at PageID.136). That same day, this Court notified Plaintiff
of the motion and ordered a response by November 6. (ECF No. 24).
On October 28, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court order Defendant
to send him a copy of the motion to dismiss as he had not yet received a copy (as of
October 23). (ECF No. 25, PageID.139–40). Plaintiff nevertheless explained that
he could “guess” what was said in the motion to dismiss and, not wanting to delay
proceedings, had wrote a “blind response” to the motion and included it in the same
envelope. 	(Id. at PageID.140–41; see also ECF No. 27 (response)). 	At the same
time, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking a “stern warning” and sanctions
against 	defense 	counsel 	for 	the 	above-described 	conduct. 	(ECF 	No. 	26,
PageID.148).
On October 30, Defendant filed a notice of re-service, asserting she had
previously mailed a copy of the motion to dismiss on October 15, but had sent
another copy upon receiving Plaintiff’s motion seeking a copy. 	(ECF No. 28).
Defendant attached receipts showing both the October 15 and the October 30
mailings. (ECF Nos. 28-1, 28-2).
The next day, Defendant also filed a response to the instant motion. (ECF No.
29). 	As to Plaintiff’s first allegation of error, counsel “acknowledge[d] that
[P]laintiff is now paroled from the MDOC and as such some form of communication
Case 4:25-cv-11779-FKB-PTM ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 5

3
should have been sent to ascertain whether Plaintiff would concur in the motion.”
(Id. at PageID.181). Counsel noted it was an oversight and not done maliciously or
with intent to prevent Plaintiff from receiving a copy of the motion. (Id.).
On November 5, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for service and
extended his deadline for responding to the motion to dismiss to November 28. (ECF
No. 31). 	On November 12, Plaintiff filed a reply to his motion for sanctions,
indicating he had received the motion to dismiss on October 30. 	(ECF No. 32,
PageID.192). 	He also indicated he was “not asking for any extension of time to
respond, or to file an amended response. 	This [C]ourt has already received my
response, and I stand by the response I previously filed.” 	(Id. at PageID.193
(emphasis in original)). 	Plaintiff also responded to the Court’s November 5 order
granting additional time to respond, thanking the Court but indicating he would stand
by the response already sent, dated October 23. (ECF No. 33).
After reviewing all facts and filings to date, the Court does not find sanctions
appropriate at this time. See ED Mich. LR 7.1(a)(3) (providing that the Court “may,”
but need not, sanction failures to seek concurrence). As for failing to seek Plaintiff’s
concurrence, it is clear defense counsel mistakenly did not concur with Plaintiff prior
to filing the motion to dismiss. However, such affront does not warrant striking the
entire motion or other possible sanctions. 	Instead, the Court is satisfied with
counsel’s admission that he should have reached out to Plaintiff regarding the motion
Case 4:25-cv-11779-FKB-PTM ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 5

4
before filing it. 	Defense counsel’s error is understandable in light of Plaintiff’s
recent incarceration.
As for the service issue, the Court does not find any facts that support an
inference of impropriety on the part of Defendant or her attorney. 	The original
motion included proof of service showing the motion had been served. Counsel has
attached the receipt indicating a filing was sent to Plaintiff on October 15. There is
no dispute that the filing did not reach Plaintiff in a timely matter—if it ever did.
However, Plaintiff says he received the motion on October 30, the same day counsel
re-sent the motion. 	The Court finds it unlikely the motion Plaintiff received on
October 30 was the one counsel sent on that same day. 	More likely, the original
motion was delayed and Plaintiff received it on October 30. Nevertheless, Plaintiff
responded to the motion to dismiss in a timely manner and has stood by his response
notwithstanding his receipt of no fewer than two copies of the motion to dismiss.
There is no indication at this time that sanctions would be appropriate. The
Court has noted the violation, and the parties are to take note that violating the Local
Rules again may result in the Court striking a future filing and directing a party to
refile their papers in accordance with the local rules or other appropriate sanctions.
III. 	Conclusion
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 26) is DENIED.
As a reminder, the Court has previously given Defendant until December 12, 2025,
Case 4:25-cv-11779-FKB-PTM ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/08/25 Page 4 of 5

5
to reply to Plaintiff’s response to the pending motion to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: December 8, 2025 	S/PATRICIA T. MORRIS
Patricia T. Morris
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-11779-FKB-PTM ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/08/25 Page 5 of 5