Mitchell v. Glacier County, 2020 MT 173N

Plaintiff Elaine Mitchell sued Glacier County, County Clerk Glenda Hall, and a county commissioner after Hall filed a complaint with the Montana Department of Labor & Industry alleging Mitchell practiced as an accountant without a license.
The Department’s Business Standards Bureau administratively closed Hall’s complaint, concluding the licensure statute does not prohibit calling oneself an “accountant,” and took no enforcement action.
Mitchell’s district‑court complaint alleged malicious prosecution, abuse of process, defamation (conceded), discrimination under the Government Code of Fair Practices, and multiple civil‑rights violations (free speech, assembly, press, participation in government, retaliation, equal protection, due process).
The Ninth Judicial District dismissed Mitchell’s complaint under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim: malicious‑prosecution and abuse‑of‑process claims failed because no judicial proceeding was instituted; the discrimination and civil‑rights claims lacked required factual specificity about how and when rights were violated and what damages occurred.
Mitchell’s discrimination claim had already been investigated by the Montana Human Rights Bureau, which found no reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred.
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal in a non‑citable memorandum opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether malicious prosecution / abuse of process are actionable where only an administrative complaint was filed with a state agency	Hall’s agency complaint was a corrupt use of governmental process intended to destroy Mitchell’s livelihood, supporting tort claims	Malicious prosecution and abuse of process require an underlying judicial proceeding; an administratively closed agency complaint cannot sustain these torts	Dismissed — claims fail because no judicial proceeding was instituted
Whether Mitchell pleaded her civil‑rights claims (free speech, assembly, press, participation, retaliation, equal protection, due process) with specificity	Alleged Hall’s complaint was intended to deprive Mitchell of constitutional rights and to damage her career, implying compensable harm	Pleadings are conclusory; they do not allege when, how, or by whom rights were deprived or the damages suffered	Dismissed — claims lack the necessary factual detail to state a claim
Whether the Government Code of Fair Practices discrimination claim was adequately pleaded	County actions surrounding Hall’s complaint constituted discrimination against Mitchell	Complaint fails to identify how the County discriminated or which statutory provisions were violated; administrative investigation found no reasonable cause	Dismissed — insufficiently pleaded and undermined by administrative finding

Willson v. Taylor, 634 P.2d 1180 (Mont. 1981) (standard for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6): plaintiff must show some set of facts entitling to relief)
Seltzer v. Morton, 154 P.3d 561 (Mont. 2007) (malicious prosecution and abuse of process require a judicial proceeding)
Plouffe v. Mont. DPHHS, 45 P.3d 10 (Mont. 2002) (agency action that does not become a judicial proceeding cannot support malicious‑prosecution/abuse‑of‑process claims)
Mysse v. Martens, 926 P.2d 765 (Mont. 1996) (complaint must plead facts disclosing each element of a claim to give fair notice)