Retaliatory prosecution claims; Governmental immunity; Vicarious liability for county employees’ alleged intentional torts; Whether an activity constitutes a governmental function; Margaris v Genesee Cnty; Injunctive relief against future criminal prosecutions; Jeffrey v Clinton Twp; Monetary damages claim against a local government for allegedly violating the Michigan Constitution; Prosecutorial immunity; Bischoff v Calhoun Cnty Prosecutor; Whether challenged conduct was quasi-judicial in nature or investigative/administrative; Buckley v Fitzsimmons

The court held that: (1) the trial court properly dismissed “plaintiff’s claims for injunctive and monetary relief under the Michigan Constitution”; (2) defendant-Wayne County was entitled to governmental immunity from vicarious liability for its employees’ alleged intentional torts; (3) “prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity only for judicial or quasi-judicial functions, and qualified immunity for administrative or investigative acts” and (4) defendants’ challenges to the sufficiency of plaintiff’s original complaint were moot in light of his amended complaint. Given that plaintiff alleged defendant-assistant prosecutor’s (Doherty) conduct fell into the administrative/investigative act category, the court reversed the trial court’s grant of absolute immunity and remanded “for proceedings consistent with a qualified immunity analysis.” It also reversed the denial of summary disposition for Wayne County based on governmental immunity. It affirmed as to plaintiff’s claims for injunctive and monetary relief under the state constitution. He asserted that the County retaliated against him for suing it in federal court, by “reviving a dormant criminal case and selectively prosecuting him for bringing that suit. The charges against [him] were ultimately dismissed (twice) for lack of evidence.” On appeal, the court concluded that, as in Margaris, the conduct at issue here fell “within the core functions of local government. Representing the County in civil litigation, prosecuting criminal charges, and employing attorneys to perform those functions all fall within the general scope of government activity. Because the analysis focuses on the general nature—and not the specific actions Doherty” or a County assistant corporate counsel were “alleged to have taken in the course of their duties—Wayne County is immune from vicarious liability under the government immunity act.” As to Doherty, noting that “the law on this subject is unsettled,” the court agreed with plaintiff “that Doherty is not entitled to absolute immunity.” While Bischoff was not controlling, the court found its approach as to “the distinction between absolute immunity for quasi-judicial acts and only qualified immunity for investigative or administrative conduct” persuasive. And it concluded only qualified immunity applied where plaintiff’s allegations suggested “Doherty’s conduct was aimed at reviving a dormant prosecution and falls within the category of investigative or administrative acts, not quasi-judicial ones.”