How to File a Lawsuit Without a Lawyer in Michigan: Pro Se Litigation Guide

Start with Michigan Court Rules (MCR). In Michigan, Michigan calls the opening paper a complaint. Self-represented parties file in Circuit Court (District Court for civil claims within jurisdictional limits). Individuals may appear pro se. Business entities generally need Michigan counsel outside small-claims exceptions. That is the question this guide answers for filing a lawsuit without a lawyer. E-filing: MiFILE. Michigan’s MiFILE system supports self-represented e-filing in participating courts; verify whether your county still accepts paper for your case type. Service: MCR 2.105. Small claims: District Court small-claims division (generally up to $7,000).

Contents

• What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
• Can you litigate pro se in Michigan?
• Role of the judge and the jury
• Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
• How to file and serve in Michigan
• Registering for e-filing
• Discovery
• Rules of evidence (short tour)
• Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
• How LawDiver can help
• Michigan case law highlights
• Frequently asked questions

What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?

Self-represented litigants lose cases when they confuse sources of law. Use these definitions when you research on LawDiver:

A winning Michigan theory usually needs all three of: (1) a substantive statute or common-law claim, (2) a pleading that satisfies the civil rules, and (3) admissible evidence under the Michigan Rules of Evidence.

How the Michigan rule applies

Apply the Michigan authorities in order. The facts are simplified so the statute and the standard are visible.

A person in Michigan wants to sue without a lawyer and has not yet filed anything.

1. Confirm you may appear without counsel: Individuals may appear pro se. Business entities generally need Michigan counsel outside small-claims exceptions.
2. Draft a complaint and file it in Circuit Court (District Court for civil claims within jurisdictional limits). E-filing: Michigan’s MiFILE system supports self-represented e-filing in participating courts; verify whether your county still accepts paper for your case type.
3. Serve under MCR 2.105. Serve under MCR 2.105 — personal service, registered/certified mail where authorized, or other methods. File proof of service.
4. Expect discovery under MCR 2.301–2.316 govern discovery. Case management schedules set cutoffs in Circuit Court. A jury demand follows Demand a jury under MCR 2.508 for eligible claims. Small claims are non-jury.

Missing service or a limitations deadline is not excused because the filer is pro se in Michigan. The evidence companion is the Michigan evidence guide.

Can you litigate pro se in Michigan?

Individuals may appear pro se. Business entities generally need Michigan counsel outside small-claims exceptions.

Pro se (sometimes in propria persona or self-represented) means you speak for yourself. Courts often construe pro se papers liberally on formatting, but they do not invent claims you failed to plead, excuse missed statutes of limitation, or waive service defects. If a corporation is on the other side with counsel, you will still be held to the Michigan Court Rules (MCR).

Michigan One Court of Justice self-help and legal-aid sites publish SCAO-approved forms.

Michigan opinions on pro se practice

People v. Dennany; People v. Jones

People v. Dennany; People v. Jones, 445 Mich. 412 (1994)

…tion upon the erroneous ground that his decision to proceed pro se was not made knowingly and voluntarily, we affirm in part the Court of Appeals decision. I A. STATEMENT OP PACTS — PEOPLE v JONES Emmett Jones was charged with unarmed robbery,2 and breaking and entering an occupied dwelling with intent to commit larceny.3 He was also charged in a supplemental information with b…

Michigan opinions such as People v. Dennany; People v. Jones are cited where pro se is disputed. The court stated: "Court of Appeals decision. I A. STATEMENT OP PACTS — PEOPLE v JONES Emmett Jones was charged with unarmed robbery,2 and breaking and entering an occupied dwelling with intent to commit larceny." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

People v. Herrera (On Remand)

People v. Herrera (On Remand), 204 Mich. App. 333 (1994)

…sanctions are ever appropriate in criminal cases involving pro se defendants and, if so, whether a higher standard should apply to such cases. We now turn to the merits of these issues, albeit not exactly in that order. MCR 2.114(D) imposes various requirements of good faith and reasonable inquiry upon the signatories of legal pleadings. MCR 2.114(E) provides that, "[i]f a ple…

People v. Herrera (On Remand) is worth reading on Michigan pro se because the court put the point in its own words: "We now turn to the merits of these issues, albeit not exactly in that order. MCR 2.114(D) imposes various requirements of good faith and reasonable inquiry upon the signatories of legal pleadings. MCR 2." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

FMB-FIRST MICHIGAN BANK v. BAILEY

FMB-FIRST MICHIGAN BANK v. BAILEY, 232 Mich. App. 711 (1998)

…ed by the sanctions assessed against defendant is whether a pro se litigant may be awarded attorney fees. We answer no because a pro se litigant has not incurred attorney fees as these terms are used in the relevant court rules and statute. However, we remand with instructions to the trial court to use its discretion under MCR 2.114(E) to formulate an appropriate sanction again…

FMB-FIRST MICHIGAN BANK v. BAILEY is worth reading on Michigan pro se because the court put the point in its own words: "We answer no because a pro se litigant has not incurred attorney fees as these terms are used in the relevant court rules and statute. However, we remand with instructions to the trial court to use its discretion under MCR 2." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

Omdahl v. West Iron County Board of Education

Omdahl v. West Iron County Board of Education, 478 Mich. 423 (2007)

…cus curiae. TAYLOR, C.J. At issue in this case is whether a pro se litigant, who is also an attorney, may recover "court costs and actual attorney fees," MCL 15.271(4), after he or she *382 brings a successful action under the Open Meetings Act. We conclude that because an attorney is defined as an agent of another person, there must be separate identities between the attorney…

Omdahl v. West Iron County Board of Education is worth reading on Michigan pro se because the court put the point in its own words: "TAYLOR, C.J. At issue in this case is whether a pro se litigant, who is also an attorney, may recover 'court costs and actual attorney fees,' MCL 15.271(4), after he or she *382 brings a successful action under the Open Meetings Act." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

Watkins v. Manchester

Watkins v. Manchester, 220 Mich. App. 337 (1997)

…Bureau, 163 Mich App 437, 445; 414 NW2d 909 (1987), that a pro se plaintiff-attorney could not recover fees pursuant to the attorney fee provision of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act. See MCL 15.234; MSA 4.1801(4). This Court reasoned that the purpose of the foia attorney fee provi *343 sion was to facilitate the disclosure of full and complete information regarding gov…

Michigan opinions such as Watkins v. Manchester are cited where pro se is disputed. The court stated: "Bureau, 163 Mich App 437, 445; 414 NW2d 909 (1987), that a pro se plaintiff-attorney could not recover fees pursuant to the attorney fee provision of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act. See MCL 15.234; MSA 4.1801(4)." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

Role of the judge and the jury

• The judge decides questions of law: what the statute means, whether a pleading states a claim, which evidence is admissible, and how the jury (if any) is instructed. In bench trials and most small-claims matters, the judge also finds the facts.
• The jury decides disputed questions of fact in jury-eligible civil cases when a timely demand is made and any jury fee is paid.
• Demand a jury under MCR 2.508 for eligible claims. Small claims are non-jury.

Practical tip: decide before filing whether you want a jury. Late demands are often waived. Small-claims paths (District Court small-claims division) usually trade speed for no jury and limited discovery.

Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions

Pleadings are the formal papers that frame the lawsuit. In Michigan the plaintiff's opening paper is typically a complaint. It should:

1. Identify the parties and the court (Circuit Court (District Court for civil claims within jurisdictional limits) or the small-claims forum).
2. Allege facts that, if true, entitle you to relief under a recognized claim.
3. Demand judgment (money, injunction, declaratory relief, or other remedies the court can grant).
4. Include a jury demand if you want one and the claim is jury-triable.

The defendant responds with an answer (admissions, denials, affirmative defenses) and/or a motion to dismiss challenging legal sufficiency, jurisdiction, or service. Later motions (compel discovery, summary judgment, limine) are usually not “pleadings” in the technical sense, but they drive most civil cases.

Michigan pleadings opinions

Silberstein v. Pro-Golf of America, Inc.

Silberstein v. Pro-Golf of America, Inc., 278 Mich. App. 446 (2008)

…on. Again, I’m going to grant in part and deny in part. The motion to dismiss the claim for wrongful termination is denied as Plaintiff has alleged he was terminated due to his refusal to violate not only generally accepted accounting principles [GAAP], but also Sarbanes-Oxley, as well as SEC and FTC rules and regulations. However, to the extent that Plaintiff claims he was ter…

On pleadings, Silberstein v. Pro-Golf of America, Inc. speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "Again, I’m going to grant in part and deny in part." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

In Re COMPLAINT OF MICHIGAN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION AGAINST AMERITECH MICHIGAN

In Re COMPLAINT OF MICHIGAN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION AGAINST AMERITECH MICHIGAN, 241 Mich. App. 344 (2000)

…otherwise fails to conform to these rules may be raised by motion to dismiss or answer, at the option of the respondent. All other defenses to a complaint shall be raised by the answer. Relying on the word “may” near the end of the first sentence in Rule 513, Ameritech Michigan asserts that it had the discretion to raise the mcta Group’s standing to bring a complaint in a moti…

On pleadings, In Re COMPLAINT OF MICHIGAN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION AGAINST AMERITECH MICHIGAN speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "All other defenses to a complaint shall be raised by the answer." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

Chrysler Corporation v. Civil Rights Commission

Chrysler Corporation v. Civil Rights Commission, 68 Mich. App. 283 (1976)

…o stay the proceedings before it pending disposition of the motion to dismiss that plaintiff had filed on April 27. An order to show cause issued and, after a hearing, the circuit court on May 21, 1971, ordered the CRC to stay its notice order of April 16, 1971, until plaintiff’s motion of April 27 was heard and decided. The court retained jurisdiction to later consider plainti…

On pleadings, Chrysler Corporation v. Civil Rights Commission speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "April 27. An order to show cause issued and, after a hearing, the circuit court on May 21, 1971, ordered the CRC to stay its notice order of April 16, 1971, until plaintiff’s motion of April 27 was heard and decided." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

Werner v. MacOmb County Civil Service Commission

Werner v. MacOmb County Civil Service Commission, 77 Mich. App. 533 (1977)

…on May 7, 1975, the Civil Service Commission again denied a motion to dismiss and upheld Werner’s discharge by the sheriff. The Macomb County Circuit Court affirmed the refusal of the Civil Service Commission to dismiss and found the sheriff was justified in discharging Werner. On appeal, plaintiff brings two allegations of error. We will deal with each in order. *537 Plaintiff…

Practitioners open Werner v. MacOmb County Civil Service Commission when Michigan pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "May 7, 1975, the Civil Service Commission again denied a motion to dismiss and upheld Werner’s discharge by the sheriff. The Macomb County Circuit Court affirmed the refusal of the Civil Service Commission to dismiss and found the sheriff was justified in discharging Werner." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

Civil Service Commission v. Secretary of State

Civil Service Commission v. Secretary of State, 379 Mich. 613 (1967)

…ifically disapproved by said commission. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that "plaintiffs' sole exclusive remedy, if any, is by way of petition for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court," and, also, an answer and "affirmative defenses" wherein they claimed that: "Appointing authorities can contract for services with independent contractors when it is not admini…

On pleadings, Civil Service Commission v. Secretary of State speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "ifically disapproved by said commission. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that 'plaintiffs' sole exclusive remedy, if any, is by way of petition for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court,' and, also, an answer and 'affirmative defenses' wherein they claimed that:" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

Dawkins v. Department of Civil Service

Dawkins v. Department of Civil Service, 130 Mich. App. 669 (1983)

…il 18, 1983, this Court granted intervening defendants’ own motion to dismiss that appeal. Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the trial court award attorney fees, but the court denied the motion. Plaintiffs appealed, challenging the court’s refusal to award attorney fees. It is that appeal which is the subject of this opinion. Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to a…

Michigan opinions such as Dawkins v. Department of Civil Service are cited where pleadings is disputed. The court stated: "Court granted intervening defendants’ own motion to dismiss that appeal. Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the trial court award attorney fees, but the court denied the motion. Plaintiffs appealed, challenging the court’s refusal to award attorney fees." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

How to file and serve in Michigan

Filing

1. Choose the correct forum: Circuit Court (District Court for civil claims within jurisdictional limits) for larger or complex civil cases; District Court small-claims division when your claim fits generally up to $7,000.
2. Prepare the complaint (and any required cover sheet, civil case information statement, or summons).
3. Pay the filing fee or apply for a fee waiver / indigency finding as Michigan practice allows.
4. Obtain a signed summons (or local equivalent) from the clerk after the case is opened.

Governing procedure: Michigan Court Rules (MCR).

Service of process

Filing alone does not start the clock against the defendant in a meaningful way — service does. Authority: MCR 2.105.

Serve under MCR 2.105 — personal service, registered/certified mail where authorized, or other methods. File proof of service.

Defective service is one of the most common reasons pro se cases are dismissed without prejudice (or worse, delayed until limitations problems appear). Keep copies of every affidavit or return.

Michigan service opinions

Dogan v. MICH. BASIC PROP. INS. ASS'N

Dogan v. MICH. BASIC PROP. INS. ASS'N, 130 Mich. App. 313 (1983)

…s server executed an affidavit stating that, upon executing service of process on the defendant, he was received by a receptionist who stated that they have a "person designated to accept such service" and was directed to Sharon Smith to whom he gave a summons and a copy of the complaint. Defendant contends that Ms. Smith executed an affidavit stating that she is neither a dire…

Michigan opinions such as Dogan v. MICH. BASIC PROP. INS. ASS'N are cited where service of process is disputed. The court stated: "Sharon Smith to whom he gave a summons and a copy of the complaint. Defendant contends that Ms." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

State Accident Fund v. Catsman Company, Incorporated

State Accident Fund v. Catsman Company, Incorporated, 376 Mich. 194 (1965)

…e his papers to the Genesee county sheriff’s department for service of process. “4. These papers toere not placed in my hands, for service of process, nor did 1 accept them for service of process and this individual departed without turning them over to me or the Midland county sheriff’s department for service.” (Emphasis supplied.) In opposition to defendant’s motion for accel…

State Accident Fund v. Catsman Company, Incorporated is worth reading on Michigan service of process because the court put the point in its own words: "Genesee county sheriff’s department for service of process. “4." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

Bunner v. Blow-Rite Insulation Company

Bunner v. Blow-Rite Insulation Company, 162 Mich. App. 669 (1987)

…esent Rapco’s interest in this matter. Rapco moved to quash service of process on February 5, 1986. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the action against Rapco without prejudice in an order entered April 18, 1986. We reverse. MCR 2.105(D) provides for service of process upon corporations: (D) Private Corporations, Domestic and Foreign. *672 Service of process on a…

Practitioners open Bunner v. Blow-Rite Insulation Company when Michigan service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Rapco’s interest in this matter. Rapco moved to quash service of process on February 5, 1986. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the action against Rapco without prejudice in an order entered April 18, 1986. We reverse. MCR 2." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

Durfy v. Kellogg

Durfy v. Kellogg, 193 Mich. App. 141 (1992)

…complaint 3 did not authorize an extension of the time for service of process. MCR 2.102(D) made it clear that the summons had to expire 182 days from the filing of the original complaint, not from the filing of the amended complaint. Accordingly, the court clerk erred in issuing the second summons with an expiration date different from that of the original summons. It is true…

Practitioners open Durfy v. Kellogg when Michigan service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "MCR 2.102(D) made it clear that the summons had to expire 182 days from the filing of the original complaint, not from the filing of the amended complaint." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

Troy W. Maschmeyer Company v. Haas — Souris, J., concurring

Troy W. Maschmeyer Company v. Haas — Souris, J., concurring, 376 Mich. 289 (1965)

…its complaint to enforce the lien on February 28, 1963 and service of process therein having been made upon defendants on July 9, 1963. Mr. Justice Otis M. Smith has written that the provisions of our general statute of limitations1 are applicable to toll the one-year period of limitations contained in our lien act2 for a period of 90 days when a complaint is filed and a copy…

Troy W. Maschmeyer Company v. Haas — Souris, J., concurring is worth reading on Michigan service of process because the court put the point in its own words: "February 28, 1963 and service of process therein having been made upon defendants on July 9, 1963. Mr. Justice Otis M." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

Krontz v. Estovez

Krontz v. Estovez, 49 Mich. App. 30 (1973)

…971), which held that the filing of a complaint and not the service of process tolled statutes of limitations. Subsequently, on November 12, 1971, plaintiffs *32 mailed a copy of the summons and complaint to the defendant at Lavelle 1430 in Buenos Aires and to the Michigan Secretary of State. A few days later both the defendant and the Secretary of State acknowledged receipt of…

On service of process, Krontz v. Estovez speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "Subsequently, on November 12, 1971, plaintiffs *32 mailed a copy of the summons and complaint to the defendant at Lavelle 1430 in Buenos Aires and to the Michigan Secretary of State." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

Conrad v. Ward

Conrad v. Ward, 33 Mich. App. 687 (1971)

…CR 1963, 105.8.1 The court order author*690ized substituted service of process by tacking the summons and complaint to the front doors of certain specified buildings, “and, by leaving a summons and a copy of the complaint and this order at defendant’s usual place of abode with some member of his family therein residing, who is of suitable age and discretion, informing that pers…

On service of process, Conrad v. Ward speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "CR 1963, 105.8.1 The court order author*690ized substituted service of process by tacking the summons and complaint to the front doors of certain specified buildings, “and, by leaving a summons and a copy of the complaint and this order at defendant’s usual place of abode with so" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

Registering for e-filing

Michigan's primary electronic filing path is MiFILE.

How to register: Register for MiFILE, complete identity verification, and fund an account for filing fees or submit a fee-waiver application.

Pro se reality check: Michigan’s MiFILE system supports self-represented e-filing in participating courts; verify whether your county still accepts paper for your case type.

When you e-file:

• Use PDF/A or the portal's accepted formats; flatten forms before upload.
• Check that party names match the caption exactly.
• Calendar the clerk's acceptance email — a rejected filing is often treated as unfiled.
• Serve other parties under the rules (e-service through the portal may not replace initial service of process).

Discovery

After pleadings, parties exchange information. In Michigan:

MCR 2.301–2.316 govern discovery. Case management schedules set cutoffs in Circuit Court.

Typical tools:

• Interrogatories — written questions answered under oath.
• Requests for production — documents, ESI, and tangible things.
• Requests for admission — force yes/no authenticity or fact stipulations.
• Depositions — live testimony under oath (expensive; plan carefully if you are self-represented).

If the other side stonewalls, a motion to compel and, later, sanctions motions are the enforcement path. Courts expect meet-and-confer first in most jurisdictions.

Michigan discovery opinions

SANDERS v. PERFECTING CHURCH

SANDERS v. PERFECTING CHURCH, 303 Mich. App. 1 (2013)

…nd her complaint and the order denying her motion to compel discovery.1 We affirm. I. BACKGROUND On July 8, 2007, plaintiff slipped and fell on motor oil that was located in defendant church’s parking lot. Plaintiff filed the instant action, alleging that she was an *3invitee at the time of the injury and that she was injured as a result of defendant’s failure to inspect for an…

Michigan opinions such as SANDERS v. PERFECTING CHURCH are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "We affirm. I. BACKGROUND On July 8, 2007, plaintiff slipped and fell on motor oil that was located in defendant church’s parking lot." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

Nuriel v. Young Women’s Christian Association of Metropolitan Detroit

Nuriel v. Young Women’s Christian Association of Metropolitan Detroit, 186 Mich. App. 141 (1990)

…motion to compel. A trial court's decision to grant or deny discovery is subject to reversal only if there has been an abuse of discretion. McDonald Ford Sales, Inc v Ford Motor Co, 165 Mich App 321, 329; 418 NW2d 716 (1987). The trial court should consider whether the granting of discovery will facilitate or hamper the litigation. Factors such as the timeliness of the request,…

On discovery, Nuriel v. Young Women’s Christian Association of Metropolitan Detroit speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "A trial court's decision to grant or deny discovery is subject to reversal only if there has been an abuse of discretion. McDonald Ford Sales, Inc v Ford Motor Co, 165 Mich App 321, 329; 418 NW2d 716 (1987)." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Company v. Bronson Plating Company

Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Company v. Bronson Plating Company, 197 Mich. App. 482 (1992)

…counsel and its motion to compel the production of certain discovery materials. Michigan Millers filed a cross appeal, claiming that the trial court erred in denying its motion for reimbursement of costs expended in defense of Bronson. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. i The relevant facts are not in dispute. Bronson has conducted electroplating operations in an…

Michigan opinions such as Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Company v. Bronson Plating Company are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "Michigan Millers filed a cross appeal, claiming that the trial court erred in denying its motion for reimbursement of costs expended in defense of Bronson. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. i The relevant facts are not in dispute." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

U S Fire Insurance Company v. Citizens Insurance Company of America

U S Fire Insurance Company v. Citizens Insurance Company of America, 156 Mich. App. 588 (1986)

…itigation. The order Citizens now appeals from arose during discovery proceedings. During a deposition, Jerry Maloney, Citizens’ claims representative, testified that he had offered the $500,000 policy limits to Pianin and Graber. In their subsequent depositions, Pianin and Graber denied that such an offer had been made. Citizens’ attorney then questioned Pianin and Graber on w…

U S Fire Insurance Company v. Citizens Insurance Company of America is worth reading on Michigan discovery because the court put the point in its own words: "The order Citizens now appeals from arose during discovery proceedings. During a deposition, Jerry Maloney, Citizens’ claims representative, testified that he had offered the $500,000 policy limits to Pianin and Graber." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

People v. Newhouse

People v. Newhouse, 104 Mich. App. 380 (1981)

…district court, adding to his motion a claim for post-trial discovery to obtain the tape of the conversation between the prosecution witness and the police. This tape was listened to at trial by the trial counsel and the trial court. It was upon this tape that defendant based his claim of police coercion. The motion was denied by Federal District Court Judge Noel P. Fox on Marc…

People v. Newhouse is worth reading on Michigan discovery because the court put the point in its own words: "This tape was listened to at trial by the trial counsel and the trial court. It was upon this tape that defendant based his claim of police coercion. The motion was denied by Federal District Court Judge Noel P." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

Pridemore v. Williams; Wardell v. Henry

Pridemore v. Williams; Wardell v. Henry, 90 Mich. App. 483 (1979)

…hat the plaintiff need not answer the interrogatories since discovery was not equally available to both parties in paternity cases. Defendant appeals the denial of his motion by leave granted and the two cases were consolidated for oral argument and decision. Proceedings under The Paternity Act have created a great confusion concerning the nature of the proceedings. They are ge…

Michigan opinions such as Pridemore v. Williams; Wardell v. Henry are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "Defendant appeals the denial of his motion by leave granted and the two cases were consolidated for oral argument and decision. Proceedings under The Paternity Act have created a great confusion concerning the nature of the proceedings." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

Rules of evidence (short tour)

Trials and many motion hearings are decided on admissible evidence, not on what you know happened. Michigan applies the Michigan Rules of Evidence. Core ideas:

• Relevance — does the proof make a fact of consequence more or less probable?
• Authenticity — is the exhibit what you claim it is?
• Hearsay — is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth, and if so, does an exception apply?
• Privileges — attorney-client, spousal, and other privileges can block inquiry even when the facts are relevant.

For a full Michigan walkthrough of hearsay, business records, authenticity, and depositions at trial, read the companion guide: Michigan Evidence Law: Admissibility, Hearsay, and Authenticity.

Summary judgment and other dispositive motions

Many civil cases never reach a jury. A party may move for summary judgment by showing there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pro se litigants lose these motions when they respond with argument instead of affidavits, authenticated exhibits, and pinpoint record citations.

Michigan summary-judgment opinions

Rizzo v. Kretschmer

Rizzo v. Kretschmer, 389 Mich. 363 (1973)

…se. The first is what must a defendant, on a motion *366for summary judgment after original pleadings, interrogatories and depositions but before trial testimony, prove to prevent a case from going to trial. The second is what data at this stage of the proceedings may enter in the proof of whether there was a "genuine issue as to any material fact” under GCR 1963, 117.2(3) and…

On summary judgment, Rizzo v. Kretschmer speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "The first is what must a defendant, on a motion *366for summary judgment after original pleadings, interrogatories and depositions but before trial testimony, prove to prevent a case from going to trial." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

DURANT v. STAHLIN. APPEAL in Re Van DUSEN, ELLIOTT, ROMNEY — Souris, J., concurring

DURANT v. STAHLIN. APPEAL in Re Van DUSEN, ELLIOTT, ROMNEY — Souris, J., concurring, 375 Mich. 628 (1965)

…rring in affirmance). We are obliged to review the grant of summary judgments in favor of three more of the 14 defendants identified in a two-count complaint filed by plaintiff which previously has been before this Court. See Durant v. Stahlin (1964), 374 Mich 82. See, also, Zimmerman v. Stahlin (1964), 374 Mich 93, one of a series of cases related to the case at bar. Plaintiff…

Practitioners open DURANT v. STAHLIN. APPEAL in Re Van DUSEN, ELLIOTT, ROMNEY — Souris, J., concurring when Michigan summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "We are obliged to review the grant of summary judgments in favor of three more of the 14 defendants identified in a two-count complaint filed by plaintiff which previously has been before this Court. See Durant v. Stahlin (1964), 374 Mich 82. See, also, Zimmerman v." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

Bob v. Holmes

Bob v. Holmes, 78 Mich. App. 205 (1977)

…enesee County Circuit Court granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, denying defendants’ motion for rehearing, and ordering that defendants pay certain sums to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs originally brought this action in Oakland County on February 14, 1974, seeking to recover monies due under two purported leases for equipment and fixtures. By stipulation and order, venue…

Practitioners open Bob v. Holmes when Michigan summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "County Circuit Court granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, denying defendants’ motion for rehearing, and ordering that defendants pay certain sums to plaintiffs." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

Szidik v. Podsiadlo

Szidik v. Podsiadlo, 109 Mich. App. 446 (1981)

…r's insurance policy. On March 11, 1980, Allstate moved for summary judgment, GCR 1963, 117.2(3). The accompanying affidavits established that defendant moved out of his parents' home on March 23, 1977. According to Podsiadlo, he moved out of his parents' home on April 1, 1977. In their motion for summary judgment, Allstate claimed that defendant was not a resident of the insur…

On summary judgment, Szidik v. Podsiadlo speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "On March 11, 1980, Allstate moved for summary judgment, GCR 1963, 117.2(3). The accompanying affidavits established that defendant moved out of his parents' home on March 23, 1977. According to Podsiadlo, he moved out of his parents' home on April 1, 1977." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

Cibor v. Oakwood Hospital — Levin, J., concurring

Cibor v. Oakwood Hospital — Levin, J., concurring, 14 Mich. App. 1 (1968)

…the Court’s opinion states that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been brought as a motion for accelerated judgment. In my opinion a motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact concerning the charitable immunity defense was entirely proper.1 The grounds upon which a motion for accelerated judgment may…

Cibor v. Oakwood Hospital — Levin, J., concurring is worth reading on Michigan summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "Court’s opinion states that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been brought as a motion for accelerated judgment." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

How LawDiver can help

LawDiver is built for researching the same authorities a courtroom expects — not for inventing cites.

1. LawDiver search — From this guide page, the search rail is scoped to Michigan. Search phrases like pro se, service of process, motion to compel, or your statute number.
2. Corpus-linked opinions — Every case block above links to a /casedisplay opinion id that exists in LawDiver's caselaw corpus. Do not paste outside citations into filings unless you have verified them.
3. Statutes — Where Michigan codes are mirrored, open the linked statute sections from this article and read the live text before quoting.
4. GoodLaw / citator workflow — Before you rely on an older opinion, check how later Michigan cases treat it.
5. Evidence companion — Use the Michigan evidence guide when you are preparing exhibits or opposing a motion in limine.
6. AI research with grounding — Prefer tools that require retrieval from your matter and the LawDiver corpus over chatbots that invent case names.

LawDiver does not file documents for you, give legal advice, or replace a lawyer when the stakes, opposing counsel, or entity-representation rules require one.

Michigan case law highlights

Use the topic sections above for pro se practice, pleadings, service, discovery, and summary judgment. Re-run LawDiver searches before hearings — new published opinions appear continuously.

Checklist before you file in Michigan

1. Confirm you (not an entity) may appear pro se for this claim.
2. Pick District Court small-claims division vs Circuit Court (District Court for civil claims within jurisdictional limits) based on amount and remedy.
3. Draft a complaint that states facts and a legal theory.
4. Register on MiFILE (or confirm paper filing is allowed).
5. Arrange proper service under MCR 2.105.
6. Calendar answer deadlines, discovery cutoffs, and any jury-demand deadline.
7. Research controlling Michigan cases and the Michigan Rules of Evidence on LawDiver.
8. Consider limited-scope or full representation if the other side has counsel or the claim exceeds small-claims complexity.

Key takeaways

• Individuals may appear pro se. Business entities generally need Michigan counsel outside small-claims exceptions.
• Main trial forum: Circuit Court (District Court for civil claims within jurisdictional limits). Smaller disputes often belong in District Court small-claims division (generally up to $7,000).
• Procedure: Michigan Court Rules (MCR). Opening paper: a complaint.
• Service: MCR 2.105. Serve under MCR 2.
• E-filing: MiFILE. Michigan’s MiFILE system supports self-represented e-filing in participating courts; verify whether your county still accepts paper for your case type.
• Pair this page with the LawDiver search rail (scoped to Michigan) and the Michigan evidence guide.

Primary search phrases this page targets: file a lawsuit without a lawyer Michigan; Michigan pro se; MiFILE e-filing; how to sue in Michigan.

Frequently asked questions

How do I file a lawsuit without a lawyer in Michigan?

Prepare a complaint, file it in the correct Michigan court (Circuit Court (District Court for civil claims within jurisdictional limits) or District Court small-claims division), pay or waive the fee, obtain a summons, and complete service under MCR 2.105. Register for MiFILE when e-filing is required or available.

What is the difference between a statute and a court rule?

A statute creates substantive rights and duties. A court rule (such as Michigan Court Rules (MCR)) controls procedure — captions, service, discovery, and trial mechanics. You usually need both.

Do I need to register for e-filing?

Michigan’s MiFILE system supports self-represented e-filing in participating courts; verify whether your county still accepts paper for your case type. Registration steps: Register for MiFILE, complete identity verification, and fund an account for filing fees or submit a fee-waiver application.

Will I get a jury?

Demand a jury under MCR 2.508 for eligible claims. Small claims are non-jury.

What happens in discovery?

MCR 2.301–2.316 govern discovery. Case management schedules set cutoffs in Circuit Court.

How does LawDiver help a pro se litigant?

It lets you search and read Michigan opinions and statutes that actually exist in the LawDiver corpus, with links you can verify — reducing the risk of hallucinated citations — while you still remain responsible for filing, service, and courtroom advocacy.

Disclaimer

LawDiver publishes this guide for public legal-information and SEO education purposes. It is not a substitute for advice from a licensed Michigan attorney. Court rules, e-filing vendors, fee schedules, and jurisdictional limits change. Verify every citation and deadline against official Michigan sources and the live LawDiver corpus before relying on them in a filing.