Walen v. Department of Corrections

• Decision Date: 17 August 1993
• Docket Number: M,No. 7,Docket No. 92566,7
• Citation: 505 N.W.2d 519,443 Mich. 240
• Parties: Raymond C. WALEN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, and David Desorcy, Intervening Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, State Prison of Southern Michigan Library Services, Defendant-Appellee. Calendaray Term.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 519

505 N.W.2d 519

443 Mich. 240

Raymond C. WALEN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant and David Desorcy, Intervening Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, State Prison of Southern Michigan Library Services, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 92566.

Calendar No. 7, May Term.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued May 4, 1993.

Decided Aug. 17, 1993.

[443 Mich. 241] Prison Legal Services of Michigan, Inc. by Sandra Girard, Jackson, for plaintiff-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., Irene M. Mead, Susan B. Moody, Asst. Attys. Gen., Lansing, for defendant-appellee.

OPINION

MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, Chief Justice.

This case involves the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), ¹ the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), ² and the Department of Corrections act (DOCA). ³ We are asked to determine whether the FOIA applies to Department of Corrections disciplinary hearings. The FOIA covers any "contested case," as defined by the APA. The hearing handbook's ⁴ definition of department disciplinary hearings falls within the APA definition of "contested case." In its brief to this Court, the department states that it "does not contest that a prison disciplinary hearing meets the parameters" of the APA definition. The Court of Appeals held that because the APA, § 115, ⁵ exempts department disciplinary hearings from the APA, chapters 4 and 8, the hearings are exempt from the APA's definition of "contested case." Therefore, the FOIA does not apply. We hold that the Freedom of Information Act does apply to Department of Corrections disciplinary hearings.

I

Pursuant to M.C.L. § 15.233(1); M.S.A. § 4.1801(3)(1), plaintiff, a Michigan prisoner, requested permission to inspect various final orders and decisions of the Department of Corrections hearings and records on which the decisions were made. Plaintiff instituted the present action after the department denied his request. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition, holding that the FOIA publication requirement did not apply to department disciplinary hearings, and that only the affected prisoner could mandate a copy of the proceeding. ⁶

The Court of Appeals affirmed in a two to one decision, ⁷ holding that the Legislature exempted disciplinary hearings from the publication requirement when it enacted M.C.L. § 24.315; M.S.A. § 3.560(215). We granted leave to appeal and now reverse.

II

A review of the statutes shows that the FOIA applies to department disciplinary hearings. Because the statutes do not conflict, and the language is plain and unambiguous, interpreting the statutes is unnecessary. ⁸ Jones v. Grand Ledge Public Schools, 349 Mich. 1, 9-10, 84 N.W.2d 327 (1957). See also Gilroy v. General Motors Corp. (After Remand), 438 Mich. 330, 341, 475 N.W.2d 271 (1991).

A

We must first examine the FOIA provisions ⁹ that require disclosure of records to the public. The FOIA, § 11(1)(a), ¹⁰ requires state agencies to "publish and make available to the public all of the following: (a) Final orders or decisions in contested cases and the records on which they were made." The FOIA does not define the term "contested case," but defers to the term's meaning as ascribed in the APA, chapters 1 through 7. ¹¹

The APA, chapter 1, defines "[c]ontested case" as "a proceeding, ... in which a determination of the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a named party is required by law to be made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing." ¹² The hearing handbook explains that the department must conduct all hearings that "may result in the loss by a prisoner of a right...." ¹³ The department admits and the Court of Appeals held that "a prison disciplinary case falls within the definition of a 'contested case.' " 189 Mich.App. 373, 376, 473 N.W.2d 722 (1991). We agree.

The APA, chapter 8, § 122, ¹⁴ states that for purposes of chapter 8, a contested case "does not include a case that is settled or a case in which a consent agreement is entered into or a proceeding for establishing a rate or approving, disapproving, or withdrawing approval of a form." Chapter 8, however, does not apply here. The FOIA only requires the court to apply the definition of "contested case" as used in the first seven chapters of the APA. Additionally, the APA, chapter 7, § 115, states that department disciplinary hearings are exempt from chapter 8 of the APA.

The remaining provisions of the APA do not redefine "contested case," but merely defer to the chapter 1 definition. If the Legislature intended to define "contested case" for department disciplinary hearings differently from the express APA definition, then the Legislature could have adopted explicit language expressing that intent or amending M.C.L. § 15.241(6); M.S.A. § 4.1801(11)(6). See Gordon Sel-Way, Inc. v. Spence Bros, Inc., 438 Mich. 488, 506, 475 N.W.2d 704 (1991).

B

The APA, chapter 7, § 115, also exempts department disciplinary hearings from the APA's contested case procedures, chapter 4. Although exempt from those procedures, department disciplinary hearings are not exempt from the definition of "contested case." We believe the Legislature intended only to remove department disciplinary hearings from the APA's procedural requirement for contested cases. This is evidenced by the fact that such hearings are not exempt from the remaining chapters of the APA. The Court of Appeals recognized that the hearings are subject to chapter 6 of the APA, which applies only to a "contested case:"

"When a person has exhausted all administrative remedies available within an agency, and is aggrieved by a final decision or order in a contested case, whether such decision or order is affirmative or negative in form, the decision or order is subject to direct review, by the courts as provided by law." M.C.L. § 24.301; M.S.A. § 3.560(201).

Since department disciplinary hearings are subject to chapter 6, it must be because they are "contested cases." ¹⁵

The Court of Appeals believes "that the reason the Legislature did not simply define 'contested cases' as not including prison disciplinary hearings was the fact that for the purposes of judicial review, the APA still applied. However, this is not true for disclosure requirements." 189 Mich.App. 373, 473 N.W.2d 722. There is no evidence that would draw this Court to that conclusion. We will not hold that department disciplinary hearings meet the definition of a "contested case" for one provision, but not another, absent evidence that the Legislature intended that result. The House Legislative Analysis, HB 4105, June 19, 1979, does not suggest that removing department disciplinary hearings from the FOIA was even considered:

"The manner in which these disciplinary hearings are conducted has been the subject of a great deal of controversy in recent years, and the issue of how best to structure the hearings has been highlighted by a recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision. In that decision, Lawrence v. Michigan Department of Corrections [88 Mich.App. 167, 276 N.W.2d 554 (1979) ], the court ruled that disciplinary hearings in Michigan correctional facilities fall within the definition of contested cases in the Administrative Procedures Act (A.P.A.), and must be conducted according to its provisions. These provisions include a number of rights which have not been part of the department's disciplinary hearings policy, such as the right to counsel, and the right to cross-examine witnesses. Many people feel that some of the A.P.A. requirements are inappropriate to the prison disciplinary hearings process."

The Legislature refused to exempt department disciplinary hearings from the APA altogether ¹⁶ because "the quality of prison disciplinary hearings could be improved by incorporating some of the A.P.A. due process provisions." ¹⁷ Id. By allowing department disciplinary hearings to remain subject to the definition of "contested case" for purposes of the APA, the Legislature also intended to allow the hearings to remain subject to § 11 of the FOIA. It is a well-known principle that the Legislature is presumed to be aware of, and thus to have considered the effect on, all existing statutes when enacting new laws. Malcolm v. East Detroit, 437 Mich. 132, 138, 468 N.W.2d 479 (1991).

A recent amendment to the DOCA also provides evidence that the Legislature did not intend to exempt department disciplinary hearings from the FOIA. M.C.L. § 791.230; M.S.A. § 28.2300 specifically describes prison-related documents that are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA if requested by or on behalf of a prisoner. Exempt items include log books and daily reports of department employees, staffing charts and daily assignment sheets. Final orders or decisions of prison disciplinary hearings are not exempt under this section. ¹⁸ If the Legislature intended to exempt final orders or decisions, then those items could certainly have been included in the list of exempted material.

C

The Court of Appeals also suggests that the "creation of the procedure to obtain information on prison misconduct hearings evidences the legislative intent that prison misconduct hearings are not 'contested cases' for the purposes of the FOIA." 189 Mich.App. 373, 473 N.W.2d 722. We disagree. The procedure to which the Court of Appeals referred is exclusively for the prisoner who was the subject of the hearing. The hearing handbook requires sending a copy of the decision to the subject of the hearing. It also requires the decision to be posted for the reporting officer to examine. The FOIA does not discuss sending a copy to the subject of the hearing, but applies to the general public.

Together, the provisions ensure that the subject of the hearing automatically receives a copy and that the records are made available to the public, unless otherwise exempt from disclosure. The intent behind requiring publication to the public and requiring the subject of the hearing to receive a copy differ, but the...