Civil action involving alleged police misconduct; Motions to strike; MCR 2.115(B); Amended pleadings; MCR 2.118(A); MCR 2.116(I)(5); MCR 2.110(A); Ligons v Crittenton Hosp; Leniency allowed pro se litigants in pursuing their claims; Principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse even for pro se litigants; Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8); The trial court’s authority to issue a scheduling order & manage its docket; MCR 2.401(B)(2)(a); Perjury

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by striking plaintiff’s improperly filed amended complaints, and that it properly granted summary disposition for defendant-sheriff’s office. Plaintiff sued defendant alleging police misconduct by a sergeant. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the sergeant, while “working for defendant, committed police misconduct during an investigation that led to plaintiff’s arrest and” pending criminal case. “The trial court struck, citing MCR 2.115(B), all but two complaints plaintiff filed, and only considered those initially filed on” 8/2/23. The court found this “decision was within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” It noted that plaintiff’s “right as a matter of course to amend his complaint under MCR 2.118(A)(1) was not triggered by defendant moving for summary disposition of plaintiff’s claims set forth in his original” complaints. His “later filings, all made without leave to amend, did not comport with the requirements of MCR 2.118(A)(1). The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion by striking [his] improperly filed amended complaints.” Further, although “pro se litigants are allowed some leniency” they are still required to “abide by the court rules. Ignorance of the law is no excuse even for pro se litigants.” The court also found that the trial court properly granted defendant summary disposition. Plaintiff’s 8/2/23 “complaints included no factual allegations whatsoever, nor even any clear statements of law. Rather, plaintiff merely presented a string of apparent, hard-to-follow conclusions devoid of any, even minimal, factual or legal explanation. Given plaintiff’s failing, summary disposition was warranted under MCR 2.116(C)(8).” Further, although “what issues have been decided at this point in plaintiff’s criminal case is unclear from the available record, it is clear he is attempting to use this case largely as a vehicle to challenge rulings and prevent further adverse proceedings in the separate criminal case—and to challenge his prior unrelated probate proceedings—rather than seeking appropriate civil remedies for” the sergeant’s alleged misconduct. And to the extent he claimed the sergeant “perjured himself at the preliminary examination in plaintiff’s related criminal case, this was not a proper claim before the trial court in the instant action.” Affirmed.