United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
BRENDA K. SANDERS, Plaintiff,
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT, et al., Defendants.
District Judge Avern Cohn
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
STEVEN WHALEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
August 15, 2016, Plaintiff Brenda K. Sanders
(“Plaintiff) filed a pro se action in this
court, alleging violations of state and federal law
pertaining to her removal from the bench, including
employment-related claims under Title VII and the Americans
with Disabilities Act relative to her tenure as a state
district court judge. Currently before the Court are
Plaintiffs “Emergency Ex-Parte Petitions] to Issue [a]
Temporary Restraining Order, ” [Docket
#176-177] filed on November 2 and 3, 2017 respectively, which
have been referred for pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C.
present filing, Plaintiff alleges that on October 13, 2017,
“a clerk employed by the City of Detroit Department of
Elections” prevented her from being included in
“the write in list of candidates for Mayor of Detroit .
. .” Docket #177, ¶ 4. The City of
Detroit is a Defendant in the current case. Plaintiff alleges
violations of her due process rights and requests that the
City of Detroit, Department of Elections “allow [her]
to register as a written in candidate for Mayor of the City
of Detroit. Plaintiff's Brief at 15-16. Under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(1)(A), she argues that her legal and
equitable claims against the Department of Elections and City
Clerk “are permissively joined” to the claims
related to her removal from bench because they
“‘aris[e] out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences.'” Id. at 16 (citing
request for injunctive relief should be denied. On May 16,
2017, the Honorable Avern Cohn denied Plaintiff's request
for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”)
“directing the City of Detroit and its clerk to place
[her] name on the August 8, 2017 ballot for Mayor of the City
of Detroit.” Docket #43. In denying
Plaintiff's request, the District Court noted that
“state law provides a review process for nominating
petitions” and that “the subject matter of the
petition for a TRO has nothing to do with the case pending
before the undersigned.” Id. at 2, Pg ID 807.
District Court's determination that Plaintiff's
remedy lies in the state review process rather than this
Court is the law of the case. “The law of the case
doctrine provides that ‘when a court decides upon a
rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same
issues in subsequent stages in the same case.'”
Westside Mothers v. Olszewski, 454 F.3d 532, 538
(6th Cir. 2006)(citing Scott v.
Churchill, 377 F.3d 565, 569-70 (6th Cir.2004)). None of
the three “‘exceptional circumstances'”
to the law of the case doctrine: “(1) where
substantially different evidence is raised on subsequent
trial; (2) where a subsequent contrary view of the law is
decided by the controlling authority; or (3) where a decision
is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest
injustice” applies here. Id. (citing
Hanover Ins. Co. v. American Engineering, 105 F.3d 306,
312 (6th Cir. 1997)). Likewise, Plaintiff has not
offered any reason to disturb the finding that her request to
be placed on the ballot for Mayor of the City of Detroit
“has nothing to do with the case pending before the
undersigned.” Docket #43 at 2.
these reasons, I recommend that Plaintiff's request for a
TRO [Docket #176-177] be DENIED.
objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed
within 14 days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in
28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2). Issue
first raised in objections to a magistrate judge's report
and recommendation are deemed waived. U.S. v.
Waters, 158 F.3d 933, 936 (6th Cir. 1998).
Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of
any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Howard v.
Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir.
1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947
(6th Cir. 1981). Filing of objections which raise
some issues but fail to raise others with specificity will
not preserve all the objections a party might have to this
Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of
HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991);
Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231,
829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).
14 days of service of any objecting party's timely filed
objections, the opposing party may file a response. The
response shall be not more than 20 pages in length unless by
motion and order such page limit is extended by the court.
The response shall address specifically, and in the same
order raised, each issue contained within the objections.
The November 3, 2017 filing appears to
be identical to the one filed the ...