Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sanders v. Michigan Supreme Court

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

April 3, 2019

BRENDA SANDERS, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (DOCS. 220, 221, 222, 223)[1]

          AVERN COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I.

         In 2016, plaintiff proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint against multiple defendants, ranging from courts, state agencies, judges, and attorneys. Plaintiff claimed violations of state and federal law relating to proceedings before the Michigan Supreme Court and Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission which resulted in her removal from the bench upon a finding that she is “mentally unfit.” She also claimed violations of federal law during her employment as a state district court judge, including Title VII (race, religion, and gender discrimination) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pretrial matters were referred to a magistrate judge (Doc. 85). Following several motions to dismiss and reports and recommendations which were adopted by the Court, the only remaining defendants were Laidler & Zielinski, a law firm, and Cyril Hall, an attorney.

         On January 22, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (MJRR), recommending that these remaining defendants be sua sponte dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) because plaintiff's claims against them were frivolous and otherwise failed to state a viable claim. (Doc. 215). Also on that date, the magistrate judge issued an order denying plaintiff's motion to file a fourth amended complaint (Doc. 197) in which she sought to add new defendants and additional claims (Doc. 216).

         Plaintiff did not object to the MJRR or the order denying her motion to amend. Accordingly, on February 22, 2019, the Court adopted the MJRR and dismissed the case. (Doc. 217). A judgment entered that day. (Doc. 218).

         Over thirty days later, on March 26, 2019, plaintiff filed the following motions:

Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Granting Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint or for Judgment on the Pleadings and Dismissing Defendant with Prejudice (Doc. 220)
* In this motion, plaintiff objects to the dismissal, adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, of the Attorney Grievance Commission. See Doc. 205.
Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Order Affirming Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. 221)
* In this motion, plaintiff objects to the Court affirming the magistrate judge's order denying her leave to file an amended complaint. See Doc. 208.
Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Granting Certain Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, City of Detroit, Michigan Attorney Discipline Board, Michigan Supreme Court, 36th District Court and Collins, Einhorn & Farrell, P.C. (Doc. 222)
* In this motion, plaintiff objects to the Court's order, adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, which dismissed several defendants. See Doc. 204.

         Plaintiff also filed an affidavit in support of her motions. (Doc. 224). In broad terms, plaintiff in the affidavit that she and her family are the victims of government “air stalking, ” “heavy artillery helicopter harassment, ” that her “numerous reports” to the FBI have gone unanswered, and she has “hundreds of videos” ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.