Brian Warren v. David L Barnett
335192
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Brian Warren, convicted in 1995 of multiple felonies (including felony murder), is serving life without parole; his convictions were affirmed on appeal and by the Michigan Supreme Court.
- In March 2016 Warren filed a civil suit against his former defense counsel (Barnett) and the prosecutor in his criminal case (Hallacy) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and MCR 2.605, challenging the application of the spousal privilege and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Hallacy later became a Calhoun Circuit judge; after he was added as a defendant he disqualified himself and the case was reassigned to Judge Sarah S. Lincoln.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition arguing the suit was an improper collateral attack on Warren’s criminal convictions and that the action was frivolous; the trial court granted summary disposition, found the complaint frivolous, and imposed pre-filing review sanctions.
- Warren appealed, arguing (1) the trial court improperly refused his motion to amend and denied access to courts, and (2) reassignment and Judge Lincoln’s participation violated rules and required disqualification; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary disposition was improper or constituted an unlawful collateral attack | Warren argued his civil claims were independent and did not require revisiting his convictions; he also claimed denial of the right to amend under MCR 2.116(I)(5) and denial of access to courts | Defendants argued the suit improperly collaterally attacked final criminal convictions and was frivolous, justifying dismissal and sanctions | Court affirmed dismissal; review of hearing transcript was required but not provided, so Warren waived challenge to summary disposition and denial to amend |
| Whether trial court’s pre-filing restriction and rejection of subsequent filings denied access to courts | Warren asserted the sanctions and rejection of filings violated his access and were improper | Defendants relied on the frivolous nature of prior filings to justify pre-filing review as a sanction | Court held pre-filing restrictions permissible against litigants who abuse process; evaluation required hearing transcript which Warren failed to supply |
| Whether reassignment to Judge Lincoln complied with MCR 8.111(C) | Warren claimed reassignment was improper and orchestrated by Hallacy | Defendants showed an Internal Reassignment Request stating selection by lot or administrative order and approval by court administrator and judge | Court found no plain error; reassignment complied with rule on the record presented |
| Whether Judge Lincoln was required to be disqualified for bias or prior work under Hallacy | Warren argued prior rulings against him and alleged Lincoln once served under Hallacy, creating bias or appearance of impropriety | Defendants noted judicial rulings do not establish bias absent deep-seated favoritism; no evidence Lincoln participated in Warren’s criminal prosecution or had disqualifying interest | Court held Warren failed to overcome presumption of judicial impartiality; no plain error or disqualification warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Warren, 228 Mich. App. 336 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998) (affirming convictions on direct appeal)
- People v. Warren, 462 Mich. 415 (Mich. 2000) (Michigan Supreme Court disposition of appeals)
- Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (appellate record/transcript requirements)
- Myers v. Jarnac, 189 Mich. App. 436 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (appellant’s duty to provide transcript or seek excusal)
- Nye v. Gable, Nelson & Murphy, 169 Mich. App. 411 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988) (transcript necessity for review of summary disposition grounds)
- Van Buren Twp. v. Garter Belt, Inc., 258 Mich. App. 594 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (presumption of judicial impartiality)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (Mich. 1999) (plain-error standard for unpreserved claims)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (U.S. 2009) (due process limits on judicial bias)
- Ortman v. Thomas, 99 F.3d 807 (6th Cir. 1996) (permissibility of pre-filing restrictions against vexatious litigants)