Failure to state a claim; Pleadings; Dalley v Dykema Gossett, PLLC; Leave to amend; MCR 2.116(I)(5); Wormsbacher v Phillip R Seaver Title Co, Inc; Futility; Court of Claims jurisdiction; MCL 600.6419; Absolute immunity for judges; Ginger v Wayne Circuit Judge; Malicious prosecution; Matthews v Blue Cross & Blue Shield; Governmental immunity; Misconduct in office; People v Carlin; Negligent hiring; Mueller v Brannigan Bros Rests & Taverns LLC; State of Michigan Legal Services Administration (LSA); Personal protection order (PPO); Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS)

The court held that the Court of Claims properly granted summary disposition for defendant-LSA because plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and did not abuse its discretion by denying as futile his motion to amend his complaint to add new parties. Plaintiff sued defendant expressing a variety of “grievances for things that allegedly occurred over a decade against circuit court judges, county and municipal officials, and state entities, stemming from the issuance of” PPOs against him, along with other civil and criminal matters. Apart from the caption, the complaint did not mention defendant. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the Court of Claims improperly granted summary disposition for failure to state a claim against defendant, finding plaintiff “failed to demonstrate that any factual development could possibly justify a right of recovery against” defendant. It also rejected plaintiff’s claim that the Court of Claims abused its discretion by denying his motion to amend his complaint to add new parties. It concluded the Court of Claims “properly denied as futile amendment to add the local entities as defendants on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction over them.” It also did not “abuse its discretion in denying as futile amendment of plaintiff’s complaint to add the” circuit court as a defendant. And it “properly denied as futile amendment to add the DHHS as a defendant.” Likewise, amending the complaint “to add the Offices of the Governor and Attorney General as defendants” would have been futile. “Plaintiff failed to assert a cognizable claim against them and, regardless, governmental immunity applies.” Finally, plaintiff did not “sufficiently plead a negligent hiring claim in his proposed amended complaint, making amendment to add such a claim futile.” Affirmed.