LundBerg v. Corrections Commission, Docket No. 16892

• Decision Date: 06 January 1975
• Docket Number: Docket No. 16892,No. 2,2
• Citation: 225 N.W.2d 752,57 Mich.App. 327
• Parties: Leonard H. LUNDBERG, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS COMMISSION, Defendant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 752

225 N.W.2d 752

57 Mich.App. 327

Leonard H. LUNDBERG, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS COMMISSION, Defendant.

Docket No. 16892.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2.

Jan. 6, 1975.

Released for Publication Feb. 21, 1975.

Leonard H. LundBerg, in pro. per.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Thomas A. Carlson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

Before LESINSKI, C.J., and BASHARA and VanVALKENBURG,* JJ.

VanVALKENBURG, Judge.

This is an original action by the plaintiff, an inmate at Marquette State Prison, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the defendant to promulgate rules and regulations for the operation of correction facilities pursuant to the provisions of M.C.L.A. § 791.206, M.S.A. § 28.2276. This Court ordered the defendant to show cause why the relief sought should not be granted.

The statute involved in this case reads in pertinent part:

'The director, having first obtained the approval of the commission, * * *, shall promulgate rules and regulations which Shall provide:

'For the management and control of state penal institutions, correctional farms, probation recovery camps, the wayward minor program and youthful trainee institutions and programs for the care and supervision of youthful trainees separate and apart from persons convicted of crimes within the jurisdiction of the commission.' (Emphasis added.)

Mandamus is a discretionary writ and will issue against a public official only to compel the enforcement of a clear legal duty. Livonia Drive-In Theatre v. Livonia, 363 Mich. 438, 109 N.W.2d 837 (1961). Ordinarily the act requested must be of a ministerial nature. However, the execution thereof may involve some measure of discretion. Michigan Dental Society v. Secretary of State, 294 Mich. 503, 293 N.W. 865 (1940). If the act requires some discretion but is mandated by statute and the officer failed to carry out the provisions of the statute the courts may order him to do so. Bischoff v. County of Wayne, 320 Mich. 376, 31 N.W.2d 798 (1948). Thus, in order to grant the relief prayed for we must find that there is a clear legal duty to promulgate rules and regulations.

It is a well-settled proposition that unless other considerations compel a contrary conclusion the use of the term 'shall' means that the statute is mandatory. Township of Southfield v. Drainage Board, 357 Mich. 59, 97 N.W.2d 821 (1959). In this case we see no reason for refusing to give 'shall' its ordinary meaning.

The Commission in its brief has called our attention to the fact that parts of M.C.L.A. § 800.1 et seq., M.S.A. § 28.1371 et seq. dealing with the duties of the warden, clerk and physician have been repealed. This leaves no legislative pronouncement as to the proper functions of their responsibilities. We agree with the plaintiff that this repeal creates a void which can be corrected only by the promulgation of proper rules. The purpose of 1972...