# Martin v. Department of Corrections

> Michigan Court of Appeals · January 23, 1985 · 140 Mich. App. 323

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9743111

## Case

- **Full name:** Martin v. Department of Corrections
- **Court:** Michigan Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** January 23, 1985
- **Citations:** 140 Mich. App. 323; 364 N.W.2d 322
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Shepherd
- **Judges:** Danhof, Hood, Shepherd
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9743111

## Opinion text

Shepherd, J.
(concurring). I join the majority’s opinion because I agree that prisoners are members of the public, so that the exception (for internal directives) to the requirements of rule promulgation, MCL 24.207(g); MSA 3.560(107)(g), is not a defense to plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, summary judgment was incorrectly granted on that basis.
However, our decision is not dispositive of the merits of this case. This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment. On remand, defendant may cite other grounds for the department’s failure to promulgate the directive as a rule. See, MCL 24.207(h); MSA 3.560(107)(h). Furthermore, defendant may attempt to establish, if it can, that the substance abuse committed by plaintiff is a violation of Rule 501(2), e.g., behavior that constitutes a felony, serious insubordination, repeated rule violations or violation of rules that clearly jeopardizes facility security. Our decision neither overturns the result of plaintiff’s disciplinary proceeding nor restores any disciplinary credits to him. Those issues remain open. Schinzel v Marquette Prison Warden, 419 Mich 865 ; 348 NW2d 5 (1984).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9743111. Public record. Not legal advice.