Roland C Brockriede v. Jennifer J Manley ( 2023 )

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ROLAND C. BROCKRIEDE, UNPUBLISHED
December 28, 2023
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v No. 363160
Genesee Circuit Court
JENNIFER J. MANLEY, LC No. 22-117571-AW
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and SWARTZLE and PATEL, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this action alleging fraud and requesting a writ of mandamus, plaintiff appeals as of right
the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant, Judge Jennifer J.
Manley, under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (summary disposition is warranted because of immunity granted
by law and prior judgments), and MCR 2.116(C)(8) (failure to state a claim on which relief could
be granted). For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the trial court and award costs to
defendant as the prevailing party. MCR 7.219(A).
I. BACKGROUND
This appeal arose out of plaintiff suing 67th District Court Judge Jennifer J. Manley in her
official capacity after she purportedly erred while considering a traffic violation committed by
plaintiff. The record reveals plaintiff has a significant history of suing judges in Genesee County
for perceived wrongs related to his claimed status as a “sovereign citizen.”1 In one case plaintiff
filed against a different district court judge, summary disposition was granted to that judge by
Genesee Circuit Court Judge Geoffrey Neithercut. The 2017 summary-disposition order contained
the following pertinent language: “Plaintiff Roland Brockriede, D.D.S[.] is permanently enjoined
and restrained from ever filing a lawsuit against any judge in the State of Michigan for any reasons
related to the discharge of his or her duties. This injunction survives the dismissal of the
1
Throughout his pleadings, plaintiff refers to himself thusly, “Roland-Charles: Brockriede, a
sovereign.”
-1-
Complaint.” Later, plaintiff apparently filed another lawsuit against a judge, which resulted in a
second order being entered in the prior case, this time by Genesee Circuit Court Judge Joseph
Farah. That order stated: “Plaintiff Roland Brockriede is hereby barred, restrained, and enjoined
from filing any future lawsuits without first obtaining leave of the Chief Judge of the court in
which any such case is sought to be filed.” These orders were never set aside by either judge nor
appealed to this Court.
In 2022, plaintiff was charged with driving with a suspended license, MCL 257.904(1),
which is a misdemeanor, MCL 257.904(3). He was to be arraigned by Judge Manley in June 2022,
but before the arraignment, plaintiff challenged the district court’s jurisdiction. Judge Manley
declined to address the jurisdictional challenge, noting it was not scheduled to be heard that day,
the prosecution still had time to respond, and it would be heard on a future date. Plaintiff refused
to enter a plea, considering his objection to the court’s jurisdiction. After plaintiff refused to enter
a plea, Judge Manley entered a not-guilty plea on his behalf.
Believing Judge Manley erred, plaintiff filed the present action, appearing2 to raise claims
of fraud and a request for a writ of mandamus. It is undisputed plaintiff did not obtain permission
from the chief judge before filing this lawsuit. In lieu of responding, Judge Manley moved for
summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(8). Judge Manley argued plaintiff was
barred from bringing the instant case under each of Judge Neithercut’s and Judge Farah’s orders,
Judge Manley was protected by absolute judicial immunity, and plaintiff failed to plead claims on
which relief could be granted. Plaintiff responded by contending summary disposition was
unwarranted because Judge Manley committed fraud by failing to address his jurisdictional
challenge before entering a plea of not guilty. According to plaintiff, this error by Judge Manley
divested the district court of jurisdiction, was a crime, and amounted to treason against the United
State of America. Given the lack of jurisdiction, plaintiff argued Judge Manley was not entitled
to immunity, the orders entered by Judge Neithercut and Judge Farah were not applicable, and the
trial court had grounds to enter a writ of mandamus. The trial court granted Judge Manley’s motion
for summary disposition, citing all of the grounds she alleged. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration,
which the trial court denied. This appeal followed.
II. IMPROPER COLLATERAL ATTACK
Plaintiff argues the trial court erred by granting summary disposition in favor of Judge
Manley on the basis of Judge Neithercut’s and Judge Farah’s orders.3
2
It is difficult to ascertain precisely the nature of plaintiff’s arguments as much his pleadings filed
with this Court are best described as incomprehensible, anti-Semitic rants.
3
Plaintiff also raises a myriad of new issues in his brief on appeal. Pertinently, plaintiff claims
the district court case that initially involved Judge Manley resulted in an array of new issues
occurring after the present case was summarily disposed. Plaintiff further claims he sued Judge
David J. Newblatt, who presided over the present case, in a separate lawsuit, which resulted in a
number of other errors. Lastly, plaintiff urges us to acknowledge, prepare, and file grievances on
his behalf against Judge Manley’s attorney, Barney Whitesman, and Judge Newblatt. To preserve
-2-
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“We review de novo a circuit court’s summary disposition decision.” Jackson v Southfield
Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket
No. 361397); slip op at 24 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Under MCR 2.116(C)(7), all
well-pleaded allegations must be accepted as true and construed in favor of the nonmoving party,
unless contradicted by any affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other documentary evidence
submitted by the parties.” Cannon Twp v Rockford Pub Sch, 311 Mich App 403, 414; 875 NW2d
242 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “If no facts are in dispute, and if reasonable
minds could not differ regarding the legal effect of those facts, the question whether the claim is
barred is an issue of law for the court.” Dextrom v Wexford County, 287 Mich App 406, 429; 789
NW2d 211 (2010). “However, if a question of fact exists to the extent that factual development
could provide a basis for recovery, dismissal is inappropriate.” Id.B. ANALYSIS
The trial court properly determined plaintiff’s lawsuit was barred by the orders entered by Judge
Neithercut and Judge Farah, which warranted summary disposition of plaintiff’s claims under
MCR 2.116(C)(7).
“Courts should interpret the terms in a judgment in the same manner as courts interpret
contracts.” AFT v Michigan, 334 Mich App 215, 236; 964 NW2d 113 (2020). “This Court will
enforce unambiguous contracts as written.” Zwiker v Lake Superior State Univ, 340 Mich App
448, 475; 986 NW2d 427 (2022). In enforcing such language, “this Court construes contractual
terms in context, according to their commonly used meanings.” Id.The 2017 order entered by Judge Neithercut apparently was not enough to deter plaintiff,
who initiated litigation against another district court judge in 2020. Although the procedural
specifics are unclear, plaintiff’s litigation ultimately resulted in Judge Farah entering an order with
the following language: “Plaintiff Roland Brockriede is hereby barred, restrained, and enjoined
from filing any future lawsuits without first obtaining leave of the Chief Judge of the court in
which any such case is sought to be filed.” As above, plaintiff never appealed this order nor took
steps to have it set aside in a motion for relief from judgment. Once again, this litigation
purportedly was meant to collaterally attack Judge Manley’s actions, not Judge Farah’s order.
an issue for appeal, “a party need only bring the issue to the [trial] court’s attention—whether
orally or in a brief or both.” Glasker-Davis v Auvenshine, 333 Mich App 222, 228; 964 NW2d
809 (2020). “If a litigant does not raise an issue in the trial court, this Court has no obligation to
consider the issue.” Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co v Bach Servs & Mfg, LLC, ___ Mich App
___, ____; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 359090); slip op at 3. This Court “must apply the
raise or waive rule in civil cases as stated” by our Supreme Court. Id. at ___; slip op at 5. Given
plaintiff’s failure to raise these arguments before the trial court in the present case, all of them are
unpreserved. Glasker-Davis, 333 Mich App at 228. In light of plaintiff’s failure to properly
preserve these arguments, we need not, and do not, consider them. Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration
Co, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 3.
-3-
In sum, then, at the time plaintiff’s complaint in this case was filed, there were two orders
precluding him from suing Judge Manley. In Judge Neithercut’s order, plaintiff had been
permanently enjoined from suing a judge for any reason related to the discharge of the judge’s
duties. Plaintiff contends Judge Manley committed an array of errors by failing to timely address
his challenge to her jurisdiction, and instead arraigning him on a charge of driving with a
suspended license. There is no dispute in the present case that one of Judge Manley’s duties as a
district court judge was to arraign plaintiff on the charge of driving with a suspended license, MCL
257.904(1), which is a misdemeanor, MCL 257.904(3). MCR 6.008(A) (“The district court has
jurisdiction over all misdemeanors . . . .”). Thus, plaintiff was suing Judge Manley for the
discharge of her duties as a district court judge. Therefore, under the plain language of Judge
Neithercut’s injunction, plaintiff’s lawsuit was barred. Zwiker, 340 Mich App at 475; AFT, 334
Mich App at 236. As for Judge Farah’s order, the record shows plaintiff did not obtain permission
from the chief judge in Genesee County before filing the instant case. Under the plain language
of Judge Farah’s restraining order, however, plaintiff was required to do so. Zwiker, 340 Mich
App at 475; AFT, 334 Mich App at 236. Consequently, plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case was barred
both by Judge Neithercut’s and Judge Farah’s orders.
To the extent plaintiff has belatedly attempted to undercut Judge Neithercut’s and Judge
Farah’s orders, those arguments are improper collateral attacks. A final decision by a “court of
competent jurisdiction made and entered in a proceeding of which all parties in interest have due
and legal notice and from which no appeal is taken cannot be set aside and held for naught by the
decree of another court in a collateral proceeding . . . .” Workers’ Compensation Agency Dir v
MacDonald’s Indus Prods, Inc, 305 Mich App 460, 474; 853 NW2d 467 (2014), quoting Dow v
Scully, 376 Mich 84, 88-89; 135 NW2d 360 (1965). In other words, “assuming competent
jurisdiction, a party cannot use a second proceeding to attack a tribunal’s decision in a previous
proceeding[.]” Workers’ Compensation Agency Dir, 305 Mich App at 474. As noted, there is an
exception to that rule when the first decision is made by a court, agency, or tribunal that entirely
lacks jurisdiction regarding the matter decided. See Altman v Nelson, 197 Mich App 467, 472-
473; 495 NW2d 826 (1992) (“When there is a want of jurisdiction over the parties or the subject
matter, no matter what formalities may have been taken by the trial court, the action is void because
of its want of jurisdiction. Consequently, its proceedings may be questioned collaterally as well
as on direct appeal.”). Our Supreme Court, however, has distinguished between “errors in the
exercise of jurisdiction” and the lack of jurisdiction:
Want of jurisdiction must be distinguished from error in the exercise of
jurisdiction. Where jurisdiction has once attached, mere errors or irregularities in
the proceedings, however grave, although they may render the judgment erroneous
and subject to be set aside in a proper proceeding for that purpose, will not render
the judgment void, and until set aside it is valid and binding for all purposes and
cannot be collaterally attacked. [Bowie v Arder, 441 Mich 23, 49; 490 NW2d 568(1992), quoting Jackson City Bank & Trust Co v Fredrick, 271 Mich 538, 545; 260
NW 908 (1935).]
This Court clarified, stating that “lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be collaterally attacked[,
whereas] the exercise of that jurisdiction can be challenged only on direct appeal.” Clohset v No
Name Corp (On Remand), 302 Mich App 550, 564; 840 NW2d 375 (2013) (quotation marks and
citation omitted; alteration in original).
-4-
Plaintiff claims Judge Neithercut’s and Judge Farah’s orders should be considered void
because they lacked jurisdiction. Plaintiff has not explained whether he is challenging personal or
subject-matter jurisdiction with respect to those two orders. It would appear plaintiff believes the
court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, because of his reliance on being a “sovereign citizen.”
However, both of the orders were entered in a case brought by plaintiff against a district court
judge, meaning plaintiff was the plaintiff in that case as well. “Under Michigan law, personal
jurisdiction can be established by ‘[c]onsent, to the extent authorized by the consent and subject
to the limitations provided in [MCL 600.745].’ ” Lease Acceptance Corp v Adams, 272 Mich App
209, 219; 724 NW2d 724 (2006), quoting MCL 600.701(3) (alteration in Lease Acceptance Corp).
The limitations referenced in MCL 600.745 are not relevant here. “It has been recognized by both
this Court and by the United States Supreme Court that parties may agree, even in advance of
litigation, to submit to the personal jurisdiction of a particular forum.” Lease Acceptance Corp,
272 Mich App at 219 (quotation marks and citation omitted). By filing the complaint against the
district court judge, plaintiff was consenting to the personal jurisdiction of the Genesee Circuit
Court, which included Judge Neithercut and Judge Farah. Id. Therefore, any challenge by plaintiff
regarding the personal jurisdiction of the court in the two orders at issue necessarily lacks merit.
Id.; MCL 600.701(3).
Plaintiff does not appear to challenge the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court in which
the two orders at issue were entered. However, any such argument would lack merit. “Circuit
courts are courts of general jurisdiction, vested with original jurisdiction over all civil claims and
remedies ‘except where exclusive jurisdiction is given in the constitution or by statute to some
other court . . . .’ ” Papas v Mich Gaming Control Bd, 257 Mich App 647, 657; 669 NW2d 326(2003), quoting MCL 600.605 (alteration in Papas). “The circuit courts of this state have subject-
matter jurisdiction to issue declaratory rulings, injunctions, or writs of mandamus.” Papas, 257
Mich App at 657 (quotation marks and citation omitted). From the limited information provided
to the trial court and this Court, it appears plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus directed at a district
court judge, similar to the one he sought for Judge Manley in the present case. Therefore, the
Genesee Circuit Court, which heard those claims and entered the challenged orders, had subject-
matter jurisdiction over the case. Id.
Plaintiff has not raised any potentially meritorious claims regarding the jurisdiction of the
court in which Judge Neithercut and Judge Farah entered the injunction order and restraining order.
Consequently, plaintiff was not permitted to collaterally attack those orders in this case. Workers’
Compensation Agency Dir, 305 Mich App at 474. Plaintiff, therefore, was bound by those orders,
which by their plain language as analyzed above, precluded the present lawsuit from being filed
against Judge Manley. Zwiker, 340 Mich App at 475; AFT, 334 Mich App at 236. Because there
was no possible factual development that would bring into doubt that plaintiff’s claims were
required to fail because of “prior judgment[s]” issued by Judge Neithercut and Judge Farah,
summary disposition was warranted under MCR 2.116(C)(7).
-5-
For the reasons stated above, we affirm.4 Defendant having prevailed in full is entitled to
tax costs. MCR 7.219(A).
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Brock A. Swartzle
/s/ Sima G. Patel
4
Because summary disposition of all of plaintiff’s claims was warranted under MCR 2.116(C)(7)
on the basis of Judge Neithercut’s and Judge Farah’s orders, plaintiff’s challenges to the other
reasons for summary disposition cited by the trial court have been rendered moot, and we decline
to consider them. See TM v MZ, 501 Mich 312, 317; 916 NW2d 473 (2018) (holding that “[a]
moot case presents nothing but abstract questions of law which do not rest upon existing facts or
rights,” and that appellate courts, generally, “will not entertain moot issues or decide moot cases”)
(quotation marks and citations omitted).
-6-