Civil action alleging criminal wrongdoing & fiduciary malfeasance by a public high school related to books; A complaint alleging criminal offenses; MCR 6.101(C); People v Joker; Revised School Code (RSC)

“In this civil action alleging criminal wrongdoing and fiduciary malfeasance by a public high school for offering books with sexually explicit content in the library,” the court affirmed “the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition on multiple grounds.” Plaintiffs conceded “that they failed to secure prosecutorial endorsement or pay security for costs to bring a criminal action against defendants, pursuant to MCR 6.101.” They nevertheless insisted “that the alleged criminal violations ‘form the basis for the allegations of criminal malfeasance in the Mandamus and Declaratory Judgment actions for which the case was brought.’” Plaintiffs further maintained that, because “this is a Mandamus/Declaratory Judgment action, bearing the ‘AW’ case filing, we must resolve, on appeal, whether summary judgment on the [criminal] allegations” was properly found. This claim lacked merit. “Accepting all factual allegations as true, and deciding the motion on the pleadings alone, the trial court properly found that plaintiffs could not initiate criminal prosecution without the prosecutor’s endorsement or filing a security.” Because plaintiffs argued “that the relief sought—mandamus and declaratory judgment—depend on these criminal allegations, the trial court could not grant this relief on the basis of the improperly raised criminal claims.” Insofar as they later claimed “that the security costs should be waived or reduced because plaintiffs’ counsel was working pro bono and the issue presented was one of great public concern, this Court held in” Joker, that “even if a complainant was indigent he was not entitled to post a purely nominal sum as security for costs.” Thus, their “failure to follow MCR 6.101(C) renders their criminal allegations unenforceable.” The court held that no “additional ‘factual development could possibly justify discovery’ because plaintiffs conceded that they did not follow proper procedures and they cannot waive security costs under MCR 6.101(C).” Thus, they “failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted.” Plaintiffs also argued “that the trial court’s denial of their requested civil relief was improper because a writ of mandamus or declaratory judgment are appropriate enforcement mechanisms for RSC violations or criminal statutory violations.” Again, this argument lacked merit. Because plaintiffs lacked “the capacity to bring their claim and request relief, the trial court did not err in granting defendants summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8).” The court also agreed “with the trial court that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek declaratory relief.” Finally, given “plaintiffs’ procedural failures in bringing their claims, and the fact that all plaintiffs’ claims would remain uncontestably dismissed under MCR 2.116(C)(1), (C)(4), or (C)(5) even were we to reverse the trial court’s ruling under (C)(8), we decline to review the merits of plaintiffs’ claims.”