Kell v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 19 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 120167 |
| Citation | 465 N.W.2d 26,186 Mich.App. 562 |
| Parties | Janice KELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Theodore O. JOHNSON, both in his official capacity and individual capacity as District Court Judge, and 88th Judicial District Court, jointly and severally, Defendants- Appellees. 186 Mich.App. 562, 465 N.W.2d 26 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[186 MICHAPP 562] Edward A. Meany, Harbor Springs, for plaintiff-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Gay Secor Hardy, Sol. Gen., and A. Michael Leffler [186 MICHAPP 563] and Margaret A. Nelson, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendants-appellees.
Before BRENNAN, P.J., and MacKENZIE and WEAVER, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order which granted summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) in favor of defendant Theodore O. Johnson in his individual capacity, and transferred to the Court of Claims plaintiff's remaining claims against defendants 88th District Court and Judge Johnson in his official capacity. We affirm.
Plaintiff was employed as 88th District Court Clerk-Administrator from October 1979 until her employment was terminated on November 4, 1988. She was originally hired by the district court in 1969 as a clerk-typist.
After she was fired, plaintiff brought suit in circuit court alleging that defendants violated her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, breached an implied contract of employment under which she could only be fired for just cause, and negligently or intentionally violated their duties to her by terminating her employment in bad faith. Plaintiff sought money damages.
The trial court concluded that plaintiff failed to state a claim against defendant Johnson in his individual capacity. Plaintiff contends that this conclusion was incorrect. We disagree. Plaintiff's claims are based solely on her employment relationship with the district court and defendant Johnson's exercise and discharge of administrative responsibilities as presiding judge of the 88th Judicial District. See M.C.L. Sec. 600.8153; M.S.A. Sec. 27A.8153, M.C.L. Sec. 600.8221; M.S.A. Sec. 27A.8221, and MCR 8.110(E)(3). Because plaintiff has failed to plead any facts [186 MICHAPP 564] against defendant Johnson outside his actions taken in an official capacity, the trial court properly granted summary disposition in favor of Johnson in his individual capacity.
Plaintiff claims that any defect in her pleadings could be cured by amendment. However, plaintiff never filed an amended complaint in the trial court after being given the opportunity to do so. Nor has plaintiff moved in the trial court for leave to amend her pleadings. Moreover, plaintiff has not indicated to this Court the manner in which she would amend her pleadings to state a claim against defendant Johnson in his individual capacity. Accordingly, we reject plaintiff's argument.
Plaintiff further contends that the circuit court erred in transferring to the Court of Claims her remaining claims against the 88th District Court and Judge Johnson in his official capacity. Again, we disagree.
The court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction to hear claims "against the state and any of its departments, commissions, boards, institutions, arms, or agencies." M.C.L. Sec. 600.6419; M.S.A. Sec. 27A.6419. Court of Claims jurisdiction also extends to suits against state officers where the officer was acting in his official capacity when he committed the acts complained of. Lowery v. Dep't of Corrections, 146 Mich.App. 342, 348, 380 N.W.2d 99 (1985), lv. den. 425 Mich. 870 (1986). The exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims encompasses all claims against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunbar v. Department of Mental Health
...whether those claims are ex contractu or ex delicto. See M.C.L. Sec. 600.6419(1)(a); M.S.A. Sec. 27A.6419(1)(a); Kell v. Johnson, 186 Mich.App. 562, 564, 465 N.W.2d 26 (1990). Unless there are contradictory legislative enactments that expressly divest the Court of Claims of jurisdiction ove......
-
Carlton v. Department of Corrections
...against the state and any of its instrumentalities for money damages. M.C.L. § 600.6419; M.S.A. § 27A.6419; Kell v. Johnson, 186 Mich.App. 562, 564, 465 N.W.2d 26 (1990). This jurisdiction also extends to suits against state officers where the officer was acting in an official capacity when......
-
Steele v. Department of Corrections
...against state officers when the officer was acting in an official capacity when the acts at issue were committed. Kell v. Johnson, 186 Mich.App. 562, 564, 465 N.W.2d 26 (1990). State officers are the executive officers of state departments or commissions. Burnett v. Moore, 111 Mich.App. 646......
-
Martin v. Stine
...commissions, boards, institutions, arms, or agencies." M.C.L. § 600.6419(1)(a); M.S.A. § 27A.6419(1)(a). Kell v. Johnson, 186 Mich.App. 562, 564, 465 N.W.2d 26 (1990). The exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims encompasses all claims against the state and its instrumentalities for mo......