Rupert, In re, Docket No. 145148
| Decision Date | 06 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 145148 |
| Citation | 205 Mich.App. 474,517 N.W.2d 794 |
| Parties | In re Leroy Albert RUPERT, Todd Keeder, and Stacey Boehlke, a/k/a Stacy Boehlke Balch. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Ronald J. Fabian, Jackson, for plaintiffs.
Parker & Adams, P.C. by James D. Adams, Jackson, for defendant.
Before DOCTOROFF, C.J., and MICHAEL J. KELLY and TYNER, * JJ.
The 12th District Court (hereinafter the district court) appeals the September 13, 1991, order of superintending control issued by the Jackson Circuit Court ordering it to refrain from issuing peace bonds, except as permitted by law and within the parameters established by the writ of superintending control. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Plaintiffs are individuals who had their freedom of action restrained in some way as a result of peace bonds imposed by the district court, in particular, District Judge James M. Justin. Judge Justin used the bonds as a means of preventing plaintiffs from engaging in certain forms of conduct or being in certain places within Jackson County. The conduct restrained ranged from engaging in the use of alcohol and being on certain streets or at certain locations to preventing family members from assaulting members of other families. The instant litigation was initiated on August 12, 1991, by plaintiff Leroy A. Rupert, who initially faced a domestic misdemeanor assault charge that somehow became converted into a peace-bond matter. In his complaint, Rupert alleged that the district court had required a peace bond of him in violation of statutory and court procedure and that the court exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction. On the same date that the complaint was filed, the Jackson Circuit Court issued an order not only directing the district court to show cause why the order should not issue but also directing the district court to stay all peace-bond proceedings. The court set a hearing date for September 13, 1991.
On September 4, 1991, the complaint was amended to add other plaintiffs, but the allegations were substantially the same. The complaint alleged that the peace-bond procedures were in violation of statute, interfered with other branches of the government, and were unconstitutional. The specific procedural irregularities alleged were that the district court failed to make an adequate record of the proceedings, issued "orders to appear" that were not authorized by statute, violated the blind draw system for assignment of cases, failed to give sufficient notice to persons appearing before it so that they could defend themselves, and prohibited conduct that was not subject to its jurisdiction or prohibition by issuance of a peace bond. Plaintiffs attached a number of peace bonds imposed by the district court as evidence of the allegations.
The circuit court conducted a hearing on September 13, 1991, at which plaintiffs and the district court were represented by counsel. Counsel for the district court asked that a pretrial conference be scheduled, but made no specific mention of what areas of the record he wished to develop. Counsel also argued that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their legal remedies by neglecting to appeal from the issuance of the bonds. That argument has not been made in this Court. Following the hearing, the circuit court concluded that the district court had exceeded its jurisdiction in the issuance of the bonds and dictated certain procedures that must be followed in future peace-bond cases.
The district court first argues that the circuit court abused its discretion when it issued the order of superintending control without first developing the record by way of testimony and evidence. We disagree. MCR 3.302 governs the issuance of orders of superintending control. MCR 3.302(E)(3) states as follows:
(ii) issue the order requested, or
(iii) dismiss the complaint.
(b) If a need for immediate action is shown, the court may enter an order before an answer is filed.
(c) The court may require in an order to show cause that additional records and papers be filed.
(d) An order to show cause must specify the date for hearing the complaint.
Nothing in the context of the rule specifically requires that the issuing court conduct a trial-like proceeding as the district court suggests. Similarly, there is nothing in MCR 3.301 that requires a trial proceeding if the record is clear.
The case law cited by the district court in favor of its claim that the circuit court erred in not developing the record is distinguishable. In Quandt v. Schwass, 286 Mich. 433, 438, 282 N.W. 206 (1938), our Supreme Court concluded that a writ of mandamus must be supported by proofs on the record. In addition, this Court in Burger King Corp. v. Detroit, 33 Mich.App. 382, 384, 189 N.W.2d 797 (1971), addressed the proof requirements in support of mandamus, stating as follows:
The lower court erred in granting relief to plaintiff solely on the pleadings before it. Lepofsky v City of Lincoln Park [9 Mich.App. 501, 157 N.W.2d 463 (1968) ]. In a mandamus action, the burden is on the plaintiff to present proof that the defendant has a clear, legal duty to perform in the manner requested. Toan v McGinn [271 Mich. 28, 260 N.W. 108 (1935) ]. There was here a complete failure of proofs and, consequently, insufficient basis to grant the relief requested.
The order of superintending control now supersedes the writ of mandamus when directed to a lower court or tribunal. MCR 3.302(C).
While we agree with the district court that an order of superintending...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shepherd Montessori Center Milan v. ANN ARBOR TP.
...its discretion in denying the petition because plaintiff did not establish grounds for issuing the order. See In re Rupert, 205 Mich.App. 474, 478, 517 N.W.2d 794 (1994). The trial court properly declined to issue an order of superintending control because plaintiff had an adequate legal re......
-
IN RE LAPEER CTY. CLERK
...of the district court. Moore v. Ninth Dist. Judge, 69 Mich.App. 16, 18-19, 244 N.W.2d 346 (1976); see also [In re] Rupert [205 Mich.App. 474, 517 N.W.2d 794 (1994)], supra at 478-479 . It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing the grounds for issuing the order. Id. at 478 In ......
-
People v. White
...issues and the constitutionality of statutes. See People v. Mezy, 208 Mich.App. 545, 551, 528 N.W.2d 783 (1995); In re Rupert, 205 Mich.App. 474, 479, 517 N.W.2d 794 (1994). Despite pleading guilty, defendant did not waive his right to raise the double jeopardy and constitutionality claims ......
-
Gosnell, In re
...in bringing charges. 6 However, in so holding, the circuit court failed to consider this Court's holding in In re Rupert, 205 Mich.App. 474, 480, 517 N.W.2d 794 (1994), where we determined that the peace bond statutes "do not necessarily require the involvement of the prosecutor's office, n......