§

Sango v. Grambau

Case No. 1:12-CV-1199 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2014)
Sango v. Grambau

2 Citing cases

  1. Sango v. Johnson

    Civil Action No. 13-12808 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 29, 2014)   Cited 62 times
    Explaining that plaintiff “is not just any pro se litigant, but has frequently litigated in the Eastern and Western Districts, and thus is more familiar with such basic federal court pleading requirements than other pro se prisoners might be” and recommending dismissal of complaint without further leave to amend

    See e.g. Sango v. Bell, No. 08-10514, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17567 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 7, 2008) (complaint dismissed for failure to pay filing fee or petition to proceed in forma pauperis); Sango v. Harpst, No. 08-12709, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94952 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 14, 2008) (adopting R&R granting summary judgment in favor of defendants regarding retaliation for litigation); Sango v. Riggs, No. 12-1179, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16381 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 7, 2013) (complaint dismissed for failure to pay filing fee or petition to proceed in forma pauperis); Sango v. Dennis, No. 12-332, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111707 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 8, 2013) (overruling objections and adopting R&R dismissing complaint on summary judgment); Sango v. Grambau, No. 12-1199, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41798 (W.D. Mar. 28, 2014) (overruling objections and adopting R&R dismissing complaint on summary judgment); Sango v. Rowley, No. 14-10904, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33976 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 17, 2014) (denying motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against officer); Sango v. Novak, No. 14-343, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56078 (Apr. 23, 2014) (dismissing complaint at screening stage pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1915, and finding claims to be frivolous); Sango v. Ault, No. 14-345, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59804 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2014) (dismissing all but one defendant on motions to dismiss); Sango v. Hammond, No. 14-283, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62184 (W.D. Mich. May 6, 2014) (dismissing complaint at screening stage pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1915); Sango v. Miniard, No. 14-344, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78421 (W.D. Mich. June 10, 2014) (same); Sango v. Huss, No. 14-2, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79912 (W.D. Mich. June 12, 2014) (same); Sango v. Lewis, No. 14-342, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97464 (W.D. Mich. July 18, 2014

  2. Sango v. Riggs

    Case No. 1:12-cv-1179 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 7, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    See In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 380-81 (6th Cir. 2002); McGore, 114 F.3d at 604. On October 29, 2012 and November 21, 2012, Plaintiff also filed two motions for joinder (docket ##2, 4), in which he seeks to join the instant action with two other pending actions, Sango v. Dennis et al., 1:12-cv-332 (W.D. Mich.), and Sango v. Grambau, No. 1:12-cv-1199 (W.D. Mich.). Because this Court is dismissing the instant action without prejudice, Plaintiff's motions for joinder (docket ##2, 4) will be DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.