Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

WENDELL VEY CRAWFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v CITY OF ST. CLAIR, Defendant, and ST. CLAIR COUNTY PROSECUTOR OFFICE, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED March 29, 2012

No. 301413 St. Clair Circuit Court LC No. 09-000808-CZ

Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and BECKERING and GLEICHER, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court's order granting summary disposition to the sole defendant in this case, St. Clair County Prosecutor's Office,1 following its finding that defendant was entitled to immunity and that plaintiff's complaint failed to state a legally cognizable claim. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm. Plaintiff pleaded guilty to a charge of unarmed robbery on October 1, 1953 and was sentenced to 1 to 15 years' imprisonment. He was released on February 24, 1958. On April 21, 2008, plaintiff moved for relief from the 1953 judgment, claiming that he was not represented by counsel at the time of his plea and sentencing. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment on January 21, 2009. On March 23, 2009, plaintiff filed a civil complaint against the City of St. Clair and the St. Clair County Prosecutor's Office, seeking monetary damages for injuries plaintiff allegedly suffered as a result of the 1953 conviction. After defendant moved the trial court for summary disposition, plaintiff moved to amend his complaint. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint finding that any amendment would be futile.

The City of St. Clair was dismissed for lack of service on March 26, 2010. That order has not been appealed leaving St. Clair County Prosecutor's Office as to the sole defendant in this case.

1

-1-

The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition on the grounds that defendant was entitled to immunity and that plaintiff failed to state a valid cause of action. We first address plaintiff's argument that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition to defendant. Although the trial court's order does not indicate which subsection of MCR 2.116(C) it relied on in granting defendant's motion, a review of the order indicates that the trial court found that defendant was entitled to immunity and that plaintiff's complaint failed to state a cause of action. Because the trial court's order does not indicate that it considered anything other than the pleadings, we review the trial court's order as having been granted based on the application of immunity pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), and based on failure to state a claim pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). "Summary disposition is proper under MCR 2.116(C)(7) for a claim that is barred because of immunity granted by law." Smith v Kowalski, 223 Mich App 610, 616; 567 NW2d 463 (1997). A court reviewing a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) considers all of the documentary evidence submitted by the parties and accepts all of the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations as true unless those allegations are specifically contradicted by the documentary evidence. Patterson v Kleiman, 447 Mich 429, 433-435, 434 n 6; 526 NW2d 879 (1994). "To survive a motion for summary disposition, brought under MCR 2.116(C)(7), the plaintiff must allege facts warranting the application of an exception to governmental immunity." Smith, 223 Mich App at 616. "A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint." Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 119; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). A reviewing court considers only the pleadings, accepts the wellpleaded allegations of the complaint as true, and construes them in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Id. at 119-120. Summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) is proper where the claims are "so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a right of recovery." ETT Ambulance Serv Corp v Rockford Ambulance, Inc, 204 Mich App 392, 396; 516 NW2d 498 (1994). Mere conclusory statements, unsupported by factual allegations, are insufficient to state a cause of action pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). Id. at 395-396. To the extent that plaintiff's complaint asserts a claim based on 42 USC 1983, plaintiff's complaint against defendant is not cognizable. "[A]

Download WENDELL VEY CRAWFORD V CITY OF ST CLAIR.pdf

Michigan Law