Sanders v. Michigan Supreme Court et al

Filing 227

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (Docs. 220, 221, 222, 223). Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRENDA SANDERS,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-12959

v.
HON. AVERN COHN
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
(Docs. 220, 221, 222, 223)1
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.

1

Doc. 222 and Doc. 223 are identical.

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)

2

* 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” which support her claim “that
the government has hindered the prosecution of [her] civil claims.”
For the reasons that follow, the motions are DENIED.
II.
As an initial matter, the motions seek reconsideration of orders that were entered
on March 26, 2018 - a year ago. To this extent, the motions are untimely motions for
reconsideration. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1) (motions for reconsideration must be filed
within 14 days after entry of the order).
Plaintiff, however, invokes Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) as grounds for relief, more
particularly 60(b)(1) (mistake), 60(b)(3) (fraud), and 60(b)(6) (any other reason justifying
relief). Rule 60(b) motions must be made within one year. Even assuming the motions
are timely, nothing in plaintiff’s motions or affidavit in support come close to warranting
Rule 60(b) relief. At best, plaintiff reasserts arguments previously rejected by the
magistrate judge and the Court. The dismissal of the defendants was proper for the
reasons explained in the orders. The denial of leave to amend was also proper in light
of plaintiff failing to assert plausible claims for relief.

3

This case remains CLOSED. No further filings shall be made. Plaintiff’s only
recourse is to appeal. The Court expresses no opinion as to the timeliness of an
appeal.
SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: 4/3/2019
Detroit, Michigan

4