DeFilippis v. Redford Police Dep't

1

PETER DEFILIPPIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REDFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT and DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 356168

Court of Appeals of Michigan

February 24, 2022

UNPUBLISHED

Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 2020-015497-AV

Before: Boonstra, P.J., and Ronayne Krause and Cameron, JJ.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Peter DeFilippis, appearing in propria persona appeals the circuit court's order of dismissal in favor of defendants the Redford Police Department (RPD) and the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR). Plaintiff also challenges the circuit court's order denying his motion for reconsideration. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In September 2020, plaintiff contacted the MDCR and alleged "an act of unlawful discrimination" by the RPD. The MDCR informed plaintiff that it would not take further action because plaintiff's "concerns" about the RPD had been "previously addressed" in plaintiff's prior complaints. Plaintiff challenged the MDCR's decision not to investigate his complaint further. In an October 20, 2020 letter, the MDCR informed plaintiff that his "request for reversal of the department's decision not to accept a formal complaint from" him was "denied."

In November 2020, plaintiff appealed. The circuit court sua sponte dismissed plaintiff's appeal, concluding that it was untimely. Plaintiff thereafter moved for recusal of the circuit court judge, arguing that the judge was biased because he had a previous professional relationship with a law firm that represented Redford Township. Plaintiff also moved for reconsideration of the circuit court's decision to dismiss, arguing that his claim of appeal was timely filed because it was filed within 30 days of service of the MDCR's October 2020 decision. Plaintiff additionally argued that the circuit court's unequal treatment of him violated his due-process rights. After hearing oral argument in January 2021, the circuit court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. The circuit court did not address plaintiff's motion for disqualification. This appeal followed.

II. JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE

At the outset, we must address a jurisdictional issue. The MDCR argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the circuit court's December 2020 decision is not a final judgment that is appealable as of right under MCR 7.203(A)(1)(a). We disagree.

"Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal is a question of law reviewed de novo." Tyrrell v Univ of Mich, 335 Mich.App. 254, 260-261; 966 N.W.2d 219 (2020). "Under MCR 7.203(A)(1)(a), a party does not have an appeal of right in this Court arising out of an order of a tribunal that was appealed in the circuit court. Natural Resources Defense Council v Dep't of Environmental Quality, 300 Mich.App. 79, 86; 832 N.W.2d 288 (2013).

In this case, the MDCR argues that the MDCR acted as a tribunal when it decided not to investigate plaintiff's complaint further and that the circuit court's order dismissing the appeal was an order on appeal from a tribunal. "Tribunals include administrative agencies acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity[.] However, not all agencies' actions are taken in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity." Natural Resources Defense Council, 300 Mich.App. at 86 (alteration in original; quotation marks and citations omitted). To determine whether an agency was acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, we must consider whether the agency's procedures are akin to court procedures. Id. "Quasi-judicial proceedings include procedural characteristics common to courts, such as a right to a hearing, a right to be represented by counsel, the right to submit exhibits, and the authority to subpoena witnesses and require parties to produce documents." Id.

In this case, the MDCR made its decision after engaging in a preliminary review process, which included a "telephone conversation, [a] questionnaire, and additional correspondence" with plaintiff. Although it appears that plaintiff was permitted to submit evidence to support his allegations of discrimination, the MDCR's preliminary review process did not involve any procedures involving "a right to a hearing, a right to be represented by counsel, the right to submit exhibits, and the authority to subpoena witnesses and require parties to produce documents." See id. Indeed, a contested hearing is only initiated after a formal complaint is filed. Mich. Admin Code, R 37.12. Accordingly, the procedures that the MDCR used in this case were not similar to the procedures that courts use, and the MDCR was not acting as a "tribunal." MCR 7.203(A)(1)(a) therefore does not apply to preclude this appeal as of right from the circuit court's December 2020 order.

The MDCR also argues that plaintiff failed to timely file an appeal as of right from the December 2020 order of dismissal. We disagree. The circuit court entered the order of dismissal on December 11, 2020. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a timely motion for reconsideration, which was denied on January 8, 2021. The instant appeal was filed on January 29, 2021. Because plaintiff filed his appeal to this Court within 21 days of the circuit court's order denying his motion for reconsideration, we conclude that plaintiff's claim of appeal was timely filed in accordance with the version of MCR 7.204(A)(1) that was in effect at the time the appeal was filed.

III. THE CIRCUIT COURT'S DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S APPEAL

Plaintiff argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing his appeal and by denying his motion for reconsideration because the circuit court erroneously concluded that the appeal was not timely filed. We conclude that plaintiff is not entitled to relief.

"Whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction presents a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. We review de novo issues of statutory interpretation relating to jurisdiction." Reynolds v Robert Hasbany MD PLLC, 323 Mich.App. 426, 431; 917 N.W.2d 715 (2018) (citation omitted). We review for an abuse of discretion a decision to dismiss an action, Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich. 372, 388; 719 N.W.2d 809 (2006), and a decision to deny a motion for reconsideration, Sanders v McLaren-Macomb, 323 Mich.App. 254, 264; 916 N.W.2d 305 (2018).

Under the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq., a party may file a complaint with the MDCR, which can "[r]eceive, initiate, investigate, conciliate, adjust, dispose of, issue charges, and hold hearings on complaints alleging a violation of" the Act. MCL 37.2602(c). "A complainant and a respondent . . . have a right of appeal from a final order of [the MDCR], including . . . refusals to issue charges[.]" MCL 37.2606(1). MCL 37.2606 requires a party to file an appeal in the circuit court "not more than 30 days after a copy of the order of the commission is received[.]" MCL 37.2606(4) (emphasis added). Like the statutory deadline for appeals to the circuit court, Mich. Admin Code, R 37.18 requires:

Any party claiming to be aggrieved by a final order of the commission or the department, including without limitation a refusal to issue a charge, may appeal to the circuit court of the state of Michigan having jurisdiction provided by law within 30 days of the date of service of an appealable order. [Emphasis added.]

As already stated, in September 2020, plaintiff contacted the MDCR and alleged "an act of unlawful discrimination" by the RPD. On September 18, 2020, the MDCR sent plaintiff a "Statement of Concern," which indicated that plaintiff's "complaint would not be processed for investigation" because plaintiff had already filed "three previous complaints against the [RPD] that reflect[ed] similar issues[.]" Plaintiff was informed that, if he "wish[ed] to appeal the department's decision not to process a formal complaint," he was required to file an "appeal in writing by October 18, 2020." Plaintiff was instructed to mail the appeal to the MDCR's office in Detroit, Michigan. Plaintiff challenged the MDCR's decision not to investigate his complaint. In an October 20, 2020 letter, the MDCR informed plaintiff that his "request for reversal of the department's decision not to accept a formal complaint from" him was "denied." The letter also informed plaintiff that this constituted "the Department's final decision," and plaintiff was informed of his appellate rights under Rule 37.18.

There is no dispute that the MDCR sent plaintiff a copy of its October 20, 2020 decision to his New York address by United States Postal Service (USPS) on October 23, 2020, and that plaintiff received the MDCR's decision by USPS on October 28, 2020. Therefore, the timeliness of plaintiff's appeal should have been calculated from October 28, 2020. Because plaintiff initiated his appeal in the circuit court on November 25, 2020, the circuit court erred by dismissing the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction.

Nonetheless, we conclude that the circuit court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's appeal. Plaintiff has made several complaints against the RPD with the MDCR and has appealed many of the MDCR's decisions to the Wayne County Circuit Court, to this Court, and to our Supreme Court.^[1]

As relevant to the issue on appeal, in October 2017, the MDCR denied plaintiff's request to file a formal complaint against the RPD because it had already been investigated. Plaintiff appealed to the Wayne County Circuit Court, and plaintiff moved to disqualify the judge who was assigned to his appeal. The motion was denied. Plaintiff thereafter sought review of this decision from the Chief Judge, which was denied. Plaintiff's appeal was dismissed as a result of his failure to comply with the court rules.^[2]

In December 2018, plaintiff appealed the Chief Judge's decision to this Court. This...