Martin v. Department of Corrections

• Decision Date: 28 March 1986
• Docket Number: Docket No. 75939
• Citation: 384 N.W.2d 392,424 Mich. 553
• Parties: Morris MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellant. 424 Mich. 553, 384 N.W.2d 392
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 392

384 N.W.2d 392

Morris MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 75939.

424 Mich. 553, 384 N.W.2d 392

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued Dec. 19, 1985.

Decided March 28, 1986.

Morris Martin, in pro. per.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Thomas C. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen. Corrections Div., Lansing, for defendant-appellant.

WILLIAMS, Chief Justice.

The issue in this case arises from the challenge of a prison inmate to the disciplinary directives of the Department of Corrections as not being properly 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. The department defended its disciplinary provisions as being subject to an exception to the rulemaking requirements of the APA for

"[a]n intergovernmental, interagency or intra-agency memorandum, directive or communication which does not affect the rights of, or procedures and practices available to, the public." M.C.L. Sec. 24.207(g); M.S.A. Sec. 3.560(107)(g).

The narrow question we decide today is whether, in granting summary judgment, the trial court correctly held that inmates are not members of the "public" for purposes of the APA, and the department thus acted with proper authority; or whether the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that prison inmates are members of the "public" under the APA and the department therefore did not come under the quoted exception to the APA procedural requirements. We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.

I. FACTS

Plaintiff, Morris Martin, an inmate of the State Prison of Southern Michigan in Jackson, brought an action in Ingham Circuit Court, seeking a declaratory judgment to determine the validity and applicability of an agency rule and to review an adverse and final decision by the Department of Corrections. M.C.L. Secs. 24.264, 24.301; M.S.A. Secs. 3.560(164), 3.560(201). ¹ The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that prison misconduct regulations need not be promulgated as rules under the APA because prisoners are not members of the "general public" and hence within the quoted exception to APA requirements. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that this Court's decision in Green v. Dep't of Corrections, 386 Mich. 459, 192 N.W.2d 491 (1971), led to a conclusion that prisoners are members of the public for purposes of the APA. ²

II. CORRECTIONS IS AN AGENCY COVERED BY APA

Section 113 of the APA states that it applies to "all agencies and agency proceedings not expressly exempted." M.C.L. Sec. 24.313; M.S.A. Sec. 3.560(213). The Department of Corrections is not expressly exempted from the APA. We therefore agree with the Court of Appeals holding in Human Rights Party v. Corrections Comm., 76 Mich.App. 204, 208, 256 N.W.2d 439 (1977), lv. den. 402 Mich. 906 (1978), that the corrections department is an "agency" for purposes of the APA. Furthermore, prison disciplinary proceedings have not been expressly exempted, from the act's rulemaking provisions.

III. APA RULE REQUIREMENTS AND THE "NONPUBLIC" EXCEPTION

The APA requires administrative agencies to follow certain specified procedures for promulgating rules, including the requirements of notice and hearing. M.C.L. Sec. 24.241; M.S.A. Sec. 3.560(141). The APA defines a rule as follows:

" 'Rule' means an agency regulation, statement, standard, policy, ruling or instruction of general applicability, which implements or applies law enforced or administered by the agency, or which prescribes the organization, procedure or practice of the agency, including the amendment, suspension or rescission thereof, but does not include the following:

* * *

"(g) An intergovernmental, interagency or intra-agency memorandum, directive or communication which does not affect the rights of, or procedures and practices available to, the public." M.C.L. Sec. 24.207(g); M.S.A. Sec. 3.560(107)(g).

Defendant Department of Corrections contends that rules which affect only inmates are subject to the above exception and thus exempt from the rulemaking requirements of the act because inmates are not members of the "public." ³

IV. THE GREEN

TORT DECISION

In Green v. Dep't of Corrections, supra, 386 Mich. at 464, 192 N.W.2d 491, this Court expressly adopted the language of the Court of Appeals which stated:

"[P]laintiff is a member of the public community whether in or out of jail. The difference being that when incarcerated, he is prevented, by law, from exercising the rights and privileges he enjoyed as a free member of society." 30 Mich.App. 648, 654, 186 N.W.2d 792 (1971).

The issue in Green was whether an inmate injured in the Detroit House of Corrections could recover damages pursuant to the "public building" exception to governmental immunity. ⁴ The Court of Appeals was of the opinion that the above language compels a similar finding in this case. We do not agree. A finding that an inmate is a member of the public for purposes of tort liability does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that the word "public" as used in the APA includes prisoners. ⁵ See Fletcher v. Employment Security Comm., 355 Mich. 278, 282, 94 N.W.2d 78 (1959). To make this determination, we must attempt to ascertain legislative intent. Aikens v. Dep't of Conservation, 387 Mich. 495, 499, 198 N.W.2d 304 (1972).

V. LEGISLATION REQUIRING CORRECTIONS TO PROMULGATE APA RULES

The Legislature has enacted a number of statutes directing the Department of Corrections to promulgate rules pursuant to the APA, indicating an intent that the department generally at least is subject to APA requirements. Several of these statutes deal directly with inmate rights.

M.C.L. Sec. 791.262(3); M.S.A. Sec. 28.2322(3) directs the department to promulgate rules under the APA to promote the "proper, efficient and humane" administration of jails and lockups under the jurisdiction of the county sheriff.

M.C.L. Sec. 791.265c(10); M.S.A. Sec. 28.2325(3)(10) directs the department to promulgate rules under the APA to establish criteria to determine prisoner eligibility for participation in programs of paid employment in the community.

M.C.L. Sec. 791.254(4); M.S.A. Sec. 28.2320(54)(4) directs the department to promulgate rules under the APA to implement the procedures in rehearings involving prisoner misconduct hearings.

M.C.L. Sec. 791.206(1)(d); M.S.A. Sec. 28.2276(1)(d) requires the director of the department to promulgate rules under the APA "[f]or the management and control of state penal institutions...."

A number of these directives apply to rules which would affect only prisoners. Additionally, the directive of M.C.L. Sec. 791.206(1)(d); M.S.A. Sec. 28.2276(1)(d) to promulgate rules for the management and control of state penal institutions would appear to include, by definition, rules governing the discipline of inmates. We believe the import of these statutes mandating rulemaking is that the Legislature regards a regulation which affects only inmates as being within the definition of a "rule" as defined by the APA.

VI. PERTINENT LEGISLATIVE ACTION AND INACTION REGARDING INMATES

The Legislature's intention to include inmates within the purview of the APA rules is suggested in two other ways. In one instance, the Legislature immediately enacted a specific APA exception when the Court of Appeals held that a prison disciplinary proceeding is a contested case under APA. In another, when the Model State APA was revised to include a specific exemption from APA procedures for rules affecting prisoners, the Legislature did not similarly amend the Michigan APA.

In Lawrence v. Dep't of Corrections, 88 Mich.App. 167, 276 N.W.2d 554 (1979), the Court of Appeals held that a prison disciplinary proceeding is a "contested case" within the meaning of the APA. The same year, the Legislature enacted 1979 P.A. 139, which amended the APA and expressly exempted prison disciplinary hearings from the contested case provisions of the act. M.C.L. Sec. 24.315; M.S.A. Sec. 3.560(215).

In many respects, the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act closely parallels the Model State Administrative Procedures Act drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws. 14 U.L.A. Sec. 1-101 et seq. The Model Act was redrafted in 1981, however, and now contains a section specifically exempting certain types of rules from formal promulgation requirements. In addition to exempting

"a rule concerning only the internal management of an agency which does not directly and substantially affect the procedural or substantive rights or duties of any segment of the public" (Sec. 3-116),

the Model Act exempts

"a rule concerning only inmates of a correctional or detention facility, students enrolled in an educational institution, or patients admitted to a hospital, if adopted by that facility, institution, or hospital" (Sec. 3-116 ).

We need not decide whether a provision similar to the Model Act if it were incorporated in the Michigan Act, would serve to exempt the rules at issue here from the promulgation provisions of the Michigan APA. We only note that the drafters of the Model Act found it necessary to enact a specific exemption for inmates in spite of the provision exempting rules which do not affect the "public." Our Legislature has not chosen to adopt a similar provision.

In view of the APA's requirement of an express exemption, the example of the Model State Administrative Procedures Act in expressly exempting inmates and the lawmakers' timely action exempting the department from the APA's contested-case requirements in prison misconduct cases, we are persuaded that, had the Legislature intended to exempt the department from the duty to promulgate rules pursuant to the APA covering prison discipline, it would have enacted a provision similar to the express exemption in the Model Act.

VII. PUBLIC INTEREST AND INPUT

The department...