Collins v. Department of Corrections

• Citation: 421 N.W.2d 657,167 Mich.App. 263
• Decision Date: 19 April 1988
• Docket Number: 99447,Docket Nos. 99139
• Parties: Thomas COLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee. Thomas COLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellant. 167 Mich.App. 263, 421 N.W.2d 657
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 657

421 N.W.2d 657

Thomas COLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

Thomas COLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket Nos. 99139, 99447.

167 Mich.App. 263, 421 N.W.2d 657

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Dec. 7, 1987.

Decided March 9, 1988.

Released for Publication April 19, 1988.

[167 MICHAPP 264] Thomas Collins, in pro. per., for plaintiff-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., and Thomas A. Kulick, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellee.

Before DANHOF, C.J., and SHEPHERD and BOSMAN, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidation of two cases, we are asked to determine the effect of Martin v. Dep't of Corrections, 424 Mich. 553, 384 N.W.2d 392 (1986). Plaintiff, an inmate at the State Prison of Southern Michigan at Jackson, filed the first action (Docket No. 99139), asking for a declaratory judgment that Martin applied retroactively to invalidate all of his past major misconduct adjudications that had become final. In the second action (Docket No. 99447), plaintiff made a timely petition for review of a major misconduct violation for unauthorized occupation of a cell or room. The circuit court held that Martin should be given limited retroactivity. Therefore, Martin did not apply to plaintiff's misconduct adjudications that had become final and summary disposition was [167 MICHAPP 265] granted to defendant in Docket No. 99139. However, Martin applied to the pending appeal in Docket No. 99447 and summary disposition was granted to plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals as of right in Docket No. 99139, arguing that Martin should have full retroactive effect. Defendant appeals as of right in Docket No. 99447, arguing that Martin does not apply to the facts of the present case and Martin should be given only prospective application. We affirm the orders of the circuit court.

Martin resolved a conflict in this Court regarding whether prisoners were members of the general public. ¹ The issue had to be decided in order to determine whether the Department of Corrections' disciplinary directives had to be promulgated as rules pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, M.C.L. Sec. 24.201 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 3.560(101) et seq. If the disciplinary directives did not affect the public, then they did not meet the definition of a rule and did not have to be formally promulgated as rules. M.C.L. Sec. 24.207; M.S.A. Sec. 3.560(107). If prisoners were members of the public, then the disciplinary directives were invalid because they had not been formally promulgated as rules. The Martin Court held that prisoners were members of the public and the disciplinary directives were invalid.

Defendant argues in Docket No. 99447 that Martin does not apply because plaintiff's misconduct violation could come under 1979 AC, R 791.5501 and 1980 AACS, R 791.5513, which are both promulgated rules. However, prisoner disciplinary proceedings must meet minimum due process requirements, including advance written notice of [167 MICHAPP 266] the charged violation. Tocco v. Marquette Prison Warden, 123 Mich.App. 395, 399, 333 N.W.2d 295 (1983); Dickerson v. Warden, Marquette Prison, 99 Mich.App. 630, 636, 298 N.W.2d 841 (1980). Since plaintiff was charged and his case was adjudicated based on policy directive PD-DWA 60.01, we do not think that it would be in accord with due process to consider whether plaintiff could have been charged under 1979 AC, R 791.5501 and 1980 AACS, R 791.5513. While the factual allegations of the charge remain the same, the administrative rules do not expressly prohibit the conduct with which plaintiff was charged. Therefore, application of the administrative rules would raise issues that the parties did not have an opportunity to address below. See Martin, supra, 424 Mich. pp. 557-558, n. 3, 384 N.W.2d 392.

Next, we will consider plaintiff's argument that Martin should have full retroactive effect and defendant's argument that Martin should have prospective effect only. Prospective application is preferred over full or limited retroactive application when overruling an established precedent or when deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed. People v. Phillips, 416 Mich. 63, 68, 330 N.W.2d 366 (1982), citing Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106, 92 S.Ct. 349, 355, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971). If retroactive effect is warranted, then full retroactive effect is preferred unless limited retroactivity is justified. Tebo v. Havlik, 418 Mich. 350, 360, 343 N.W.2d 181 (1984), reh. den. 419 Mich. 1201 (1984). In addition, the following considerations are pertinent to the determination of whether a new rule of law should be given full retroactivity, limited retroactivity, or prospectivity only: (1) the purpose of the new rule; (2) the general reliance upon the old rule; and (3) the effect of full retroactive application of the new rule on the administration of justice. Faigenbaum [167 MICHAPP 267] v. Oakland Medical Center, 143 Mich.App. 303, 312-313, 373 N.W.2d 161 (1985); Rozier v. Dep't of Public Health, 161 Mich.App. 591, 599, 411 N.W.2d 786 (1987).

The Martin holding does not constitute a new rule that should only be applied prospectively. Martin was not an overruling of clear precedent because the conflict in this Court did not establish a clear precedent. Nor was Martin an issue of first impression that was not clearly foreshadowed. We do not think there has to be clear precedent before a holding can be considered clearly foreshadowed. The conflict in this Court was...