Muskegon County Bd. of Com'rs v. Muskegon Circuit Judge, Docket No. 128374

• Decision Date: 01 April 1991
• Docket Number: Docket No. 128374
• Parties: MUSKEGON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Plaintiff, v. MUSKEGON CIRCUIT JUDGE, Defendant, and Muskegon County Sheriff's Department, Interested Party. 188 Mich.App. 270, 469 N.W.2d 441
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 441

469 N.W.2d 441

MUSKEGON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Plaintiff, v. MUSKEGON CIRCUIT JUDGE, Defendant and Muskegon County Sheriff's Department, Interested Party.

Docket No. 128374.

188 Mich.App. 270, 469 N.W.2d 441

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Dec. 12, 1990, at Grand Rapids.

Decided April 1, 1991, at 10:10 a.m.

Released for Publication May 17, 1991.

[188 MICHAPP 273] Vander Ploeg, Ruck, Luyendyk & Wells by Stephen C. Corwin, Muskegon, for plaintiff.

McCroskey, Feldman, Cochrane & Brock, P.C. by Eric C. Lewis, Muskegon, for the Muskegon County Sheriff's Dept.

Before MAHER, P.J., and SAWYER and BRENNAN, JJ.

SAWYER, Judge.

This original action comes before us on plaintiff's complaint for an order of superintending control, which requests us to direct defendant, the Chief Judge of the Muskegon Circuit Court, to take certain actions, and to refrain from taking certain other actions, with respect to the ongoing overcrowding problems at the Muskegon County jail. We conclude that defendant has exceeded his authority in some respects and grant some of the relief requested by plaintiff.

This action arises out of a chronic overcrowding problem at the Muskegon County jail and ongoing disputes between the Muskegon County Sheriff and the Muskegon County Prosecuting Attorney on the one hand and the Muskegon County Board of Commissioners on the other hand. The sheriff [188 MICHAPP 274] has been faced with a grossly overcrowded jail ¹ and a board of commissioners which is apparently unwilling to implement any solutions to the problem beyond allowing the early release of inmates under the county jail overcrowding act (JOA). M.C.L. Sec. 801.51 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 28.1748(1) et seq.

The sheriff was faced with additional problems because the staffing at the jail failed to meet the minimum requirements established by the Department of Corrections, which had directed the sheriff to increase the number of deputies on duty at the jail. The sheriff sought additional funding from the county to increase the number of deputies. Plaintiff has apparently taken the position that the sheriff's budget is sufficient and that, if necessary, the sheriff should transfer deputies from the road patrol to jail duty.

The instant dispute began when the sheriff, on January 26, 1990, declared an overcrowding emergency under the JOA. ² Under Sec. 5 of the JOA, ³ during the first fourteen days of an overcrowding emergency, various local officials, including the sheriff, prosecutor, judges, the county commissioners, and the county executive, are directed to take whatever action, individually and collectively, which might be within their power to take in order to relieve the overcrowding problem. The statute, [188 MICHAPP 275] while authorizing these officials to take such action, does not specifically command that specific steps be taken to alleviate the overcrowding situation. Thus, the success of Sec. 5 in addressing the problem depends to a great extent on the willingness of the local officials to take action and the realistic availability of such remedies. In any event, such action in Muskegon County did not relieve the problem.

If the actions taken pursuant to Sec. 5 do not, within fourteen days of the declaration of the emergency, reduce the jail population to the higher of ninety percent of the rated design capacity or ten empty beds, ⁴ then under Sec. 6 ⁵ the sheriff must notify the chief circuit judge and provide the judge with a list of all prisoners, including information such as the reason for incarceration and the length of the sentence. The chief circuit judge then classifies the prisoners either high risk or low risk and sets a minimum and maximum percentage by which the sentences of low-risk prisoners may be reduced to relieve the overcrowding. The sheriff then reduces the sentences of low-risk inmates by an equal percentage within the minimum and maximum. This step was apparently ineffectual in relieving the overcrowding emergency in Muskegon County.

Meanwhile, the Muskegon County Sheriff and Prosecuting Attorney joined in filing two lawsuits against the Muskegon County Board of Commissioners, demanding more funding for jail space and more staff to cope with the overcrowding. These cases were eventually assigned to defendant. However, the board sought to have defendant disqualified from these suits. Defendant initially [188 MICHAPP 276] denied the motion, and the matter was assigned to a visiting judge appointed by the state court administrator. The visiting judge ruled that defendant be disqualified. It should be noted that defendant, after denying the disqualification motion, declared the JOA to be unconstitutional. Defendant took this action despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Kent Co. Prosecutor v. Kent Co. Sheriff (On Rehearing), 428 Mich. 314, 409 N.W.2d 202 (1987), wherein the Court ruled the JOA constitutional.

Pursuant to the visiting judge's determination that defendant should be disqualified, the matter was reassigned to another visiting judge, Judge Kolenda of the Kent Circuit Court. Judge Kolenda ultimately reversed the determination of unconstitutionality of the statute. To add to the complexity of the situation, the Muskegon County Sheriff and Prosecutor filed a third action against the board, seeking a transfer of inmates to other county jails in an effort to relieve the overcrowding situation in the Muskegon County jail. This action was ultimately consolidated with the first two and assigned to Judge Kolenda. Further, inmates of the Muskegon County jail eventually sought to intervene as plaintiffs in the three suits and sought certification as a class. Ultimately, the sheriff and prosecutor sought to dismiss these actions without prejudice. The actions were dismissed, except for a counterclaim raised by the board. The inmates were certified as a class and were allowed to intervene, limited to the questions relating to enforcement of the JOA. Judge Kolenda further ordered that the sentences of all inmates in the Muskegon County jail as of June 4, 1990, be reduced by thirty-five percent in order to alleviate the overcrowding. If that sentence reduction did not lower the inmate population to 177 inmates, then the sheriff was to defer acceptance of new [188 MICHAPP 277] prisoners, with certain exceptions. ⁶ The propriety of Judge Kolenda's rulings are not before us.

These facts serve as background information and are not directly involved in the matter before us. Rather, it is the actions of defendant on April 27, 1990, and thereafter, which give rise to the instant action. Defendant had issued an order to the county board chairman, the sheriff, prosecuting attorney, and chief district judge to appear in his chambers the morning of April 27. A meeting was held off the record to discuss the overcrowding problem. Defendant then took the bench and issued an order directing the sheriff to transfer prisoners to other county jails in western Michigan and further directed the sheriff not to release inmates from incarceration. The sheriff was to transfer a sufficient number of inmates to reduce the inmate population to 225. The costs of the transfers were to be paid out of the sheriff's budget.

Pursuant to defendant's order, the sheriff transferred sixty inmates to the Newaygo County jail on April 29. On May 3, the sheriff notified defendant of this action and reported that the inmate population had been reduced to 203 inmates and that, as of the May 3 memorandum, the inmate population stood at 218. Defendant responded by issuing an order which found that the overcrowding emergency had ended and ordered all inmates returned to the Muskegon County jail. ⁷

On May 31, 1990, defendant issued a memorandum to the sheriff classifying prisoners into low- and high-risk groups and established a minimum and maximum percentage by which the sentences [188 MICHAPP 278] of low-risk prisoners would be reduced. Defendant further directed that

[n]o high risk offenders shall be released, since the Muskegon County Board of Commissioners has refused to make a good faith attempt to significantly reduce jail population per MCL 801.55 [M.S.A. Sec. 28.1748(5) ].

Having set this superintending control action in context, we may now turn to the issues raised by plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks to have us declare that defendant must comply with the mandatory release provisions of the JOA and to issue a directive to defendant addressing what he must do in discharging his duties under the JOA. In the alternative, plaintiff requests that we remove defendant from his responsibilities of administering the JOA. Next, plaintiff seeks to have us declare that defendant lacks the authority to order the transfer of prisoners to other county jails and, presumably, direct defendant to abstain from again ordering such transfers.

Plaintiff first complains that defendant has classified prisoners into high- and low-risk groups in such a way as to ensure that very few prisoners are classified low risk. Plaintiff cites defendant's May 31 memorandum to the sheriff in support of this argument. Plaintiff argues that the JOA requires that defendant make a meaningful classification of prisoners into the two groups, that defendant has failed to do so, and that we should direct him to do so.

M.C.L. Sec. 801.56(3); M.S.A. Sec. 28.1748(6)(3) provides:

After the chief circuit judge for the county in which the jail is located reviews the information presented by the sheriff pursuant to subsection (2), the chief circuit judge shall, for purposes of county [188 MICHAPP 279] jail population reduction, classify the prisoners into 2 groups: those prisoners who, if released, would present a high risk to the public safety, and those who, if released, would not present a high risk to the public safety. The chief circuit judge shall also determine a minimum and a maximum percentage by which the sentences can be reduced. The sheriff shall reduce the...