Justice obtained on appeal against malicious prosecutor
- Peter Schneider
- Jun 11, 2025
- 3 min read
I just wrote an article about why you might need an appellant lawyer and this case pops up. Mr. Reeves was asked to go to a job site and demonstrate if he was skilled in operating a skid-steer loader as part of a potential employment offer. Mr. Reeves went and demonstrated his abilities, then drove away, where he was stopped by a Michigan State Police task force investigating heavy equipment thefts.
The police detained him and seized his car and the money he had on him, but he was never charged. Mr. Reeves later participated in a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the civil forfeiture program, and soon after his participation became known, a prosecutor instigated the arrest of Mr. Reeves. About a year later the charges were dropped for a lack of evidence. The prosecutor's office refiled the charged, but they were dismissed again for a lack of evidence.
Mr. Reeves brought a lawsuit against the prosecutor and who was persecuting him and the prosecutor's bosses under the Michigan Constitution, 42 USC 1983, and the state-law torts of malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The defendants moved for summary judgment claiming immunity and that Mr. Reeves could not recover damages for what the prosecutor had done.
The defendants won dismissal of some claims, but not all, and the defendants appealed the trial court's refusal to dismiss all claims, and Mr. Reeves appealed the dismissal of the claims he lost.
The bad news:
Wayne County got away. They claimed that they were not vicariously liable for what their persecutor had done because of a governmental immunity act.
The governmental immunity act provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.” MCL 691.1407(1). “Generally, governmental agencies in Michigan are statutorily immune from tort liability.”
Mr. Reeves could not force the trial court to enjoin further malicious persecutions. Criminal prosecutions are generally not subject to injunctive relief, although there can be exceptions when public officials attempt to enforce an invalid law. The law the prosecutor was using wasn't invalid so Mr. Reeves simply didn't have the ability to force an injunction on them.
“Injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that issues only when justice requires, there is no adequate remedy at law, and there exists a real and imminent danger of irreparable injury.”
The appeals court blocked Mr. Reeves attempt to collect money damages from the prosecutor under the Michigan Constitution, but left the door open under 42 USC 1983. I don't agree with the nutty logic of this ruling, The appeals court said that people can sue Michigan State for money damages for state constitution violations, but that doesn't extend to county governments or their employees.
The good news:
The appeals court stripped the prosecutor of absolute immunity. If instead his actions were investigative or administrative, he is entitled only to qualified immunity.
Although plaintiff filed an amended complaint while this appeal was pending, Doherty’s immunity turns on the legal character of the conduct alleged—an issue that can be resolved on the face of the original pleadings. Plaintiff alleged that Doherty contacted the new officer in charge of the task force to seek clarification, recommended submission of the warrant request, and directed the officer in charge to file that request. Those allegations suggest that Doherty’s conduct was aimed at reviving a dormant prosecution and falls within the category of investigative or administrative acts, not quasi-judicial ones.
The absolute immunities enjoyed by many public servants is akin to absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. No one should have absolute power.
Do you have a question or a telemarketing, debt collection, bankruptcy, contract, consumer protection, or appellant case that would make a great blog article? We might even review your pro-se complaint or motion in a blog post. Email peter@nwdebtresolution.com and/or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com and we may answer it for everyone!
The thoughts, opinions and musings of this blog are those of Peter Schneider, a consumer advocate and Washington State plaintiff's TCPA attorney at Northwest Debt Resolution, LLC. They are just that, his thoughts, opinions and musings and should be treated as such. They are not legal advice. If you are looking to file a lawsuit for TCPA violations and unwanted calls please contact me for a consultation.
Comments