Action alleging that a prosecutor committed fraud on the court in the context of criminal proceedings by lying as to whether an immunity agreement was in place; MCR 2.612(C)(3); Heck v. Humphrey; Daoud v. DeLeau; Recovery of money damages under 42 USC § 1983

Holding that the pro se plaintiff (previously a criminal defendant in a case in which defendant here was the assigned prosecutor) failed to allege a valid cause of action, the court affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant summary disposition. Plaintiff was convicted of several crimes in 2005. In a prior appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing him to inquire into an eyewitness's understanding of whether an immunity agreement protected the witness from prosecution for parole violations stemming from prior felony convictions. Plaintiff filed several more appeals in both state and federal court, all of which were denied. He eventually filed this action, alleging defendant committed fraud on the court in the context of the criminal proceedings by lying as to whether an immunity agreement was in place. He also sought an order setting aside his criminal convictions. The trial court granted defendant summary disposition, concluding that plaintiff “could not bring an independent cause of action under MCR 2.612(C)(3),” that res judicata barred his suit, that defendant “was shielded by prosecutorial immunity, and that the suit was precluded pursuant to” Heck. The court concluded that plaintiff “cannot employ MCR 2.612 in a separate action against [defendant] individually in his ongoing effort to alter his criminal convictions.” He did not present the court “with any relevant authorities that support the proposition that a defendant can obtain relief from a criminal conviction or have it set aside in an action against the prosecuting attorney that is separate and independent from the criminal proceedings or from the avenues of relief available under the laws of criminal procedure.” Further, to the extent his “complaint could be construed as seeking money damages or constituting an action under” § 1983, it failed under Heck.