Judges - Immunity

Where a complaint has been filed over a ruling made by a judge, the judge and the county of Muskegon are entitled to summary disposition based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

“Plaintiff commenced this action against defendants, Kenneth S. Hoopes and the County of Muskegon, for actions that arise from court proceedings that occurred in LaMie v Stewart , Muskegon Circuit Court case nos. 2023-002202-CH and 2023-00333-NZ. Plaintiff alleges that Muskegon Circuit Court Judge Hoopes accepted a ‘falsified and fraudulent’ affidavit from defense counsel in LaMie , to support defendant’s motion to set aside a default and, as a result, plaintiff alleges his due process rights were violated. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that Muskegon Circuit Court Judge Hoopes recuse himself from the LaMie matter, but the motion was denied.

“Plaintiff asserts claims of ‘treason to the Constitution,’ ‘judicial fraud on the Court,’ failure/refusal to uphold provisions of the U.S. Code, violations of the U.S. Code, due process violations, and violations of the judicial oath of office. Plaintiff maintains that Muskegon Circuit Court Judge Hoopes is not entitled to judicial immunity for his actions.

“On March 26, 2024, defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4), (7), and (8) in lieu of an answer to the complaint. Defendants assert that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, defendants are entitled to immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, MCL 600.601 et seq ., defendant Hoopes is entitled to absolute judicial immunity, and plaintiff has failed to plead facts upon which relief may be granted.

“Plaintiff’s complaint asserts numerous claims against Muskegon Circuit Court Judge Hoopes, but plaintiff has failed to plead any specific facts or claims against the county. Notwithstanding plaintiff’s failure to plead any claims against the county, the county is a local government and thus is not subject to the Court of Claims’ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the county is entitled to summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4).

“Defendants next argue that Muskegon Circuit Court Judge Hoopes is a local official and thus plaintiff’s claims against Hoopes are not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. The Michigan Supreme Court has stated that the following four factors should be examined to determine if an entity is a state agency that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims: ‘(1) whether the entity was created by the state constitution, a state statute, or state agency action, (2) whether and to what extent the state government funds the entity, (3) whether and to what extent a state agency or official controls the actions of the entity at issue, and (4) whether and to what extent the entity serves local purposes or state purposes. [ Manuel v Gill , 481 Mich 637, 653; 753 NW2d 48 (2008).]’

“Considering Manuel ’s four-factor inquiry, the Court concludes, under the totality of the circumstances, that the core nature of a circuit court judge is that of a local official and thus the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims does not extend to him. Accordingly, defendant Hoopes is entitled to summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4).”

LaMie v. Hoopes; MiLW 04-108048, 7 pages; Court of Claims; Patel, J.

Click here to read the full text of the opinion

Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.