Mithrandir v. Department of Corrections

• Decision Date: 22 December 1987
• Docket Number: Docket No. 91685
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
• Parties: Jason K. MITHRANDIR, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Robert C. Van Horn, John N. Chapman, and Joseph A. Molinari, Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

Page 352

416 N.W.2d 352

164 Mich.App. 143

Jason K. MITHRANDIR, Plaintiff-Appellant and Robert C. Van Horn, John N. Chapman, and Joseph A. Molinari Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 91685.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Feb. 5, 1987.

Decided Sept. 18, 1987.

Released for Publication Dec. 22, 1987.

Jason K. Mithrandir, in pro. per.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., and Susan Peck Iannotti, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellee.

Before WAHLS, P.J., and KELLY and SIMON, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Jason Mithrandir, in propria persona, appeals as of right from a Marquette Circuit Court grant of summary disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(2) in favor of defendant. We affirm.

At the times pertinent to this appeal, the four plaintiffs were maximum security prisoners in administrative segregation at the Marquette Branch Prison. Between August 25, 1985, and September 4, 1985, each plaintiff made a written request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), M.C.L. Sec. 15.231 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 4.1801(1) et seq., to inspect Department of Corrections legal files. Except for information exempted from disclosure, the Department of Corrections, acting through George Pennell, the administrative assistant to the warden, initially granted plaintiffs' requests on condition that they appoint a representative to inspect the files. Later, Pennell denied plaintiffs' requests, but again allowed plaintiffs to appoint a representative to inspect the files or, alternatively, to obtain copies of the files upon paying the appropriate fee.

The files themselves consisted of over five hundred separate folders, each containing all the legal actions filed by a single prisoner. The files filled five drawers in two file cabinets located in the administrative section of the prison. The administrative section is located outside of the prison's security perimeter. As maximum security prisoners, plaintiffs were not allowed outside of the security perimeter.

Plaintiffs were not satisfied with Pennell's response to their FOIA requests. Consequently, they filed suit in the circuit court against Pennell as the representative of the Department of Corrections. Plaintiff Mithrandir, subsequently moved for summary disposition seeking a right to personally inspect the files. In denying the motion, the circuit court concluded that defendant's response satisfied FOIA requirements. Judgment was granted in favor of defendant under MCR 2.116(I)(2) as to all plaintiffs' FOIA claims.

We note at this point that MCR 2.116(I)(2) permits a trial court to enter a judgment for the party opposing a motion for summary disposition if it appears that the opposing party, and not the moving party, is entitled to judgment. In the present case, plaintiff Mithrandir's motion was based on MCR 2.116(C)(10), which asserts that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Such a motion tests the factual basis for a plaintiff's claim. Linebaugh v. Berdish, 144 Mich.App. 750, 753, 376 N.W.2d 400 (1985). The trial court must consider the affidavits, together with the pleadings, depositions, admissions and documentary evidence then filed or submitted by the parties. MCR 2.116(G)(5). On appeal, neither party argues that a factual issue exists. The relief sought by plaintiff is an order compelling disclosure of the files.

Plaintiff first argues that the circuit court misinterpreted the FOIA's requirements in granting judgment in favor of defendant. We disagree.

In reviewing this argument, we first look to the basic policy of the FOIA:

"It is the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and public employees, consistent with this act. The people shall be informed so that they may fully participate in the democratic process." M.C.L. Sec. 15.231(2); M.S.A. Sec. 4.1801(1)(2).

The FOIA confers upon the public the dual right to inspect nonexempt public records and to obtain copies of such records. Cashel v. Regents of the University of Michigan, 141 Mich.App. 541, 547, 367 N.W.2d 841 (1985). These rights seem to contemplate a brief perusal of certain files, followed by a request for copies of specific records found during the search. Id., at p. 549, 367 N.W.2d 841. However, these rights are not without limitation. Safeguards have been established so as not to overly burden the public body. Id., at p. 547, 367 N.W.2d 841. For instance, M.C.L. Sec. 15.234; M.S.A. Sec. 4.1801(4) permits a public body to charge a fee for providing a copy of a public record. Moreover, M.C.L. Sec. 15.233(2); M.S.A. Sec. 4.1801(3)(2) contains the following reasonableness limitations:

"A public body shall furnish a requesting person a reasonable opportunity for inspection and examination of its public records, and shall furnish reasonable facilities for making memoranda or abstracts from its public records during the usual business hours. A public body may make reasonable rules necessary to protect its public records and to prevent excessive and unreasonable interference with the discharge of its functions."

In the present case, it is undisputed that plaintiff is a "person" within the meaning of the FOIA. M.C.L. Sec. 15.232(a); M.S.A. Sec. 4.1801(2)(a); M.C.L. Sec. 15.233(2); M.S.A. Sec. 4.1801(3)(2). At first blush, it thus appears that plaintiff should have a reasonable opportunity to personally inspect nonexempt records of a public body, whether that public body is the Department of Corrections or some other public body located outside of the prison. However, there is a salient difference between persons who are members of the public community and prison inmates in that the latter, by law, are prohibited from exercising the rights and privileges they enjoyed as free members of society. Martin v. Dep't. of Corrections, 424 Mich. 553, 558-559, 384 N.W.2d 392 (1986). Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights justified by considerations underlying the penal system. Dickerson v. Warden, Marquette Prison, 99 Mich.App. 630, 635, 298 N.W.2d 841 (1980). Moreover, a prison's internal security is peculiarly a matter normally left to the discretion of prison administrators. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349, n. 14, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2400, n. 14, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981).

As can be seen from these principles, the Department of Corrections has obligations with regard to prison security and the confinement of prisoners which are separate and distinct from its duty under the FOIA to provide a reasonable opportunity for persons to inspect its nonexempt public records. Considerations peculiar to the penal system may very well justify imposing limitations on a prisoner's right to inspect its public records.

In order for the Department of Corrections to provide plaintiff with an opportunity to personally inspect its legal files, either plaintiff would have to be transported to the files or the files would have to be transported to plaintiff. As support for his position that he should be provided with an...