HERBERT W G CLANTON V DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
HERBERT W. G. CLANTON,
UNPUBLISHED
October 21, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 277440
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 06-001148-CD
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Cavanagh and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right an order of dismissal. We affirm.
Plaintiff brought this case against defendant, his employer, after grievances that he filed
were unsuccessful. Plaintiff represented himself in the proceedings below. Because his
pleadings were incomprehensible, plaintiff was ordered to seek legal representation and amend
his pleadings to conform to the requirements of the Michigan Court Rules. When he failed to
comply with the court’s order, his case was dismissed and attorney fees were awarded to
defendant. This appeal followed.
Plaintiff’s brief neither provides a comprehensible account of the facts nor clearly sets
forth his allegations. He is apparently appealing the dismissal of his case and the court’s award
of attorney fees to defendant. Both decisions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388; 719 NW2d 809 (2006); Smith v Smith, 278
Mich App 198, 207; 748 NW2d 258 (2008).
The record indicates that plaintiff filed grievances because he was not considered for a
promotion. Plaintiff claims that he was retaliated against for filing grievances and that he was
discriminated against and forced to take leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. Plaintiff
does not make any specific legal allegations or apply any of the sparse facts to the law; thus, the
trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed this case under MCR 2.504(B)(1) for
plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order to amend his complaint. Further, the award of
attorney fees did not constitute an abuse of discretion because plaintiff’s claims as stated are
devoid of arguable legal merit. See MCL 600.2591(3)(a); MCR 2.625(A)(2).
We note that the circuit court erred in ordering plaintiff to obtain counsel because he has
a constitutional right to represent himself. The Michigan Constitution provides that “[a] suitor in
-1-
any court of this state has the right to prosecute or defend his suit, either in his own proper
person or by an attorney.” Const 1963, art 1, § 13. However, because plaintiff failed to amend
his complaint to comply with the court rules and the suit was properly dismissed, this error was
harmless.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
