Densmore v. Department of Corrections
| Decision Date | 19 January 1994 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 148418 |
| Citation | 512 N.W.2d 72,203 Mich.App. 363 |
| Parties | Dale L. DENSMORE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Dale L. Densmore, Jr., Jackson, in pro. per.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., and Pamela J. Stevenson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellee.
Before DOCTOROFF, C.J., and MURPHY and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Plaintiff, a prisoner confined under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections, made Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, M.C.L. § 15.231 et seq.; M.S.A. § 4.1801(1) et seq., seeking a copy of a memorandum dated August 2, 1985, concerning himself, directing one such request to the custodian of his medical records, and the other to the custodian of his institutional file. The former request was granted, and a copy provided; the latter request was denied, an exemption being claimed.
Suit was commenced in the Ingham Circuit Court. The trial judge inspected the questioned document from plaintiff's institutional file in camera, reported that it was identical to the document already furnished to plaintiff, and dismissed plaintiff's action. The plaintiff appeals as of right.
Although this situation is not directly addressed in the Michigan FOIA, or for that matter in its federal counterpart, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., it is axiomatic that statutes are to be construed so as to avoid absurd consequences. King v. Director of Midland Co. Dep't of Social Services, 73 Mich.App. 253, 251 N.W.2d 270 (1977). We think a useful analogy can be drawn between repetitive FOIA requests for a document, a copy of which has already been provided to the requester or which is otherwise available to the requester or in the requester's possession, and MCR 6.433(B)(2), which directs court clerks to provide copies of material from criminal files to indigent defendants, but also provides that, where the requested materials have been previously provided, the defendant must make a showing of good cause in order to obtain an additional copy. In other words, there must be some explanation why the first copy did not suffice for the requester's purposes, e.g., that it was lost or stolen, or perhaps destroyed by someone other than the requester.
In construing the Michigan FOIA, the Michigan judiciary has always looked to construction of the federal counterpart by the federal judiciary for guidance. Kestenbaum v. Michigan State Univ., 414 Mich. 510, 525, 327 N.W.2d 783 (opinion by Fitzgerald, C.J.), at 551 (opinion by Ryan, J.), 327 N.W.2d 783 (1982); Booth Newspapers, Inc. v. Univ. of Michigan Bd. of Regents, 444 Mich. 211, 233, 507 N.W.2d 422 (1993). Accordingly, we adopt the reasoning and result of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit in the ironically named Crooker v. United States State Dep't, 202 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 10-11, 628 F.2d 9 (1980):
In January, 1977, appellant Michael Alan Crooker (a federal prisoner proceeding pro se ) requested from the State Department a copy of all files indexed under his name. Nineteen documents were found. Thirteen of them which had originated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were forwarded to that agency for review and direct response to appellant. The FBI released the thirteen documents to appellant on April 17, 1978. Nevertheless, on August 1, 1978, Crooker wrote the State Department requesting the FBI documentsindexed under his name. The State Department responded that the FBI had released the thirteen documents to him on April 17, 1978.
Appellant then filed the complaint in this case under the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC § 552) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the State Department. The only documents at issue are the thirteen documents already released to him by the FBI.
The District Court has previously disallowed a second claim by plaintiffs seeking the same documents from a separate agency. Lynas v. United States Department of State, Civ No 76-1880, slip op at 2 (DDC, Nov 30, 1978); accord, Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. CIA, Civ No. 77-1412, slip op at 2-3 (DDC, July 13, 1978). The Freedom of Information Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herald Co., Inc. v. Ann Arbor Public Schools
...that a suit seeks has already been made, the substance of the controversy disappears and becomes moot. Densmore v. Dep't of Corrections, 203 Mich.App. 363, 366, 512 N.W.2d 72 (1994); Traverse City Record Eagle v. Traverse City Area Public Schools, 184 Mich.App. 609, 610, 459 N.W.2d 28 (1990......
-
Seaton v. Wayne County Prosecutor
...a duplicate FOIA request where the requested documents were provided pursuant to an earlier request. Densmore v. Dep't of Corrections, 203 Mich.App. 363, 512 N.W.2d 72 (1994), holds that duplicate FOIA requests need not be answered absent an explanation for the need for duplication. In fact......
-
King v. Mich. State Police Dep't
...Herald Co., Inc. v. Ann Arbor Pub. Sch., 224 Mich.App. 266, 270–271, 568 N.W.2d 411 (1997); see also Densmore v. Dep't of Corrections, 203 Mich.App. 363, 366, 512 N.W.2d 72 (1994) ( “Once the records are produced the substance of the controversy disappears and becomes moot since the disclos......
-
State Treasurer v. Sheko
...securing reimbursement from the prisoner's assets. We decline to interpret the act in such a manner. Densmore v. Dep't of Corrections, 203 Mich.App. 363, 364, 512 N.W.2d 72 (1994). Our interpretation is supported by the fact that M.C.L. § 800.404(5); M.S.A. § 28.1704(5) requires the circuit......