Callahan v. State Legal Servs. Admin.

1

DANIEL EDWARD CALLAHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF MICHIGAN LEGAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 360118

Court of Appeals of Michigan

March 9, 2023

UNPUBLISHED

Court of Claims LC No. 21-000152-MB

Before: JANSEN, P.J., and REDFORD and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals the Court of Claims' order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and denying as futile plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add parties. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff acting in propria persona, filed a complaint naming only the "State of Michigan Legal Services Administration" (LSA) as a defendant. The complaint expressed numerous grievances for things that allegedly occurred over a decade against circuit court judges, county and municipal officials, and state entities, stemming from the issuance of personal protective orders (PPOs) against him, along with other civil and criminal matters. Although difficult to discern, his allegations relate to what he characterized as false, malicious, and unlawful prosecutions fraudulent theft and conspiracy to commit fraud, defamation, violations of statutes and court rules, and constitutional violations. None of plaintiff's allegations were directed at the LSA or specified any action or conduct by the LSA, nor did plaintiff explain how the LSA in any manner contributed to his alleged injuries or damages. Aside from the caption, the complaint did not mention the LSA.

The LSA moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10), on the ground that plaintiff failed to state a claim against it. With its motion, the LSA submitted an excerpt from the Michigan Manual to demonstrate that the LSA could not have had any involvement in the alleged wrongful conduct.^[1] In short, according to the LSA, plaintiff sued the wrong entity.

Plaintiff did not respond to the LSA's motion, but moved for leave to file an amended complaint. He attached a proposed amended complaint that reiterated his numerous grievances, but named the Ottawa Circuit Court, the Muskegon County Prosecutor's Office, the Muskegon County Sheriff's Department, the Fruitport Michigan Police Department, the "Michigan Department of Health and Human Resources,"^[2] and the Offices of the Governor and the Attorney General as additional defendants. His proposed amended complaint, again, lacked any factual allegations regarding the LSA.

The Court of Claims granted summary disposition in favor of the LSA finding that, "plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, because defendant was not involved in any of the actions or inactions alleged in the complaint." Additionally, the court denied plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint as futile on the ground that the Court of Claims "lacks jurisdiction over the named county and city departments . . . and as to the remaining state defendants the amended complaint fails to describe any involvement of those entities in the actions or inactions alleged to have deprived plaintiff of his rights." This appeal ensued.

II. ANALYSIS

As an initial matter, plaintiff's pleadings are not clear, concise, or direct, making it difficult to fully comprehend the nature of his claims. He has not presented any legal argument directly or clearly addressing the Court of Claims' decision. "Generally, where a party fails to brief the merits of an allegation of error, the issue is deemed abandoned by this Court." Yee v Shiawassee Co Bd of Comm'rs, 251 Mich.App. 379, 406; 651 N.W.2d 756 (2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted)." 'It is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.'" Id., quoting Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich. 182, 203; 94 N.W.2d 388 (1959). This Court has recognized that "a person acting in propria persona should be held to the same standards as members of the bar." Totman v Royal Oak Sch Dist, 135 Mich.App. 121, 126; 352 N.W.2d 364 (1984).

Nevertheless, mindful of plaintiff's in propria persona status, we consider his appeal, the thrust of which is that the Court of Claims should have allowed his lawsuit to proceed against the defendants named in his proposed amended complaint. See Estelle v Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106; 97 S.Ct. 285; 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (pleadings offered in propria persona should be liberally construed in the interests of justice).

A. SUMMARY DISPOSITION

Plaintiff argues that the Court of Claims improperly granted summary disposition for failure to state a claim against the LSA upon which relief can be granted. We disagree.

"Review of a motion for summary disposition is de novo." Auto Club Group Ins Co v Burchell, 249 Mich.App. 468, 479; 642 N.W.2d 406 (2001). "A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone." Eason v Coggins Mem Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 210 Mich.App. 261, 263; 532 N.W.2d 882 (1995). This Court must determine "if the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could establish the claim and justify recovery." Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). "All factual allegations supporting the claim are accepted as true, as well as any reasonable inferences or conclusions that can be drawn from the facts." Id. "However, mere conclusions, unsupported by allegations of fact, will not suffice to state a cause of action." Id.^[3]

"A complaint must contain '[a] statement of the facts, without repetition, on which the pleader relies in stating the cause of action, with the specific allegations necessary reasonably to inform the adverse party of the nature of the claims the adverse party is called on to defend ....'" Dalley v Dykema Gossett, PLLC, 287 Mich.App. 296, 305; 788 N.W.2d 679 (2010) (alteration in original), quoting MCR 2.111(B)(1). "[T]he primary function of a pleading in Michigan is to give notice of the nature of the claim or defense sufficient to permit the opposite party to take a responsive position." Dalley, 287 Mich.App. at 305 (alteration in original; quotation marks and citations omitted). A plaintiff may not leave "a defendant to guess upon what grounds plaintiff believes recovery is justified." Dacon v Transue, 441 Mich. 315, 329; 490 N.W.2d 369 (1992). Thus, plaintiff had to plead factual allegations sufficient to inform the LSA of the nature of the claims against it.

Plaintiff's complaint lacked any allegations against the LSA. Even after the LSA raised the issue regarding the lack of any allegations against it in its motion, plaintiff made no attempt to explain how the LSA did anything for which it could possibly be held liable. Nor did he assert any allegations in his proposed amended complaint and he offers no explanation in this appeal. Moreover, the LSA provides legal support to several state governmental entities, none of which would involve or concern the allegations on which plaintiff based his complaint. We conclude that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any factual development could possibly justify a right of recovery against the LSA. The Court of Claims, therefore, properly granted the LSA summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8).

B. AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff also argues that the Court of Claims abused its discretion by denying his motion to amend his complaint to add new parties. We disagree.

"We review a trial court's decision regarding a party's motion to amend its pleadings for an abuse of discretion. Thus, we defer to the trial court's judgment, and if the trial court's decision results in an outcome within the range of principled outcomes, it has not abused its discretion." Wormsbacher v Phillip R Seaver Title Co, Inc, 284 Mich.App. 1, 8; 772 N.W.2d 827 (2009) (citations omitted).

Under MCR 2.116(I)(5), the court shall permit amendment to pleadings "unless the evidence then before the court shows that amendment would not be justified." "Because a court should freely grant leave to amend a complaint when justice so requires, a motion to amend should ordinarily be denied only for particularized reasons," such as "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the defendant, or futility." Wormsbacher, 284 Mich.App. at 8. "An amendment would be futile if it is legally insufficient on its face, and the addition of allegations that merely restate those allegations already made is futile." Id. at 8-9.

1. THE COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS

The Court of Claims properly denied as futile amendment to add the Muskegon County Prosecutor's Office, the Muskegon County Sheriff's Department, the Ottawa County Sheriff's Department, and the Fruitport Police Department as defendants. These nonstate actors are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.

"Whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo." Council of Orgs &Others for Ed About Parochiaid v Michigan, 321 Mich.App. 456, 463; 909 N.W.2d 449 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "Where a court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of a suit, any action with respect to such a cause, other than dismissal, is absolutely void." Id. at 466 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

"The Court of Claims is a court of legislative creation. Its statutory powers are explicit and limited." Council of Orgs, 321 Mich.App. at 466 (quotation marks and citation omitted). "MCL 600.6419, which specifically...