S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, UNPUBLISHED
INC., a/k/a ABC, June 1,200l
Plaintiff-Appellee,
V No. 228757
Genesee Circuit Court
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LC No. 99-065300-AW
CORRECTIONS, BILL MARTIN and DAN
BOLTON,
Defendants-Appellants.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Murphy and Meter, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendants appeal as of right from the circuit court's July 19, 2000 order that granted in
part plaintiffs request for a writ of mandamus and compelled defendants to allow plaintiff to
conduct an on-camera interview with Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) inmate Jack
Kevorkian. We reverse.
"Mandamus is a writ issued by a court of superior jurisdiction to compel a public body or
public officer to perform a clear legal duty." Lee v Macomb Co Bd of Comm `~3, 235 Mich App
323,331; 597 NW2d 545 (1999) Iv gtd 617 NW2d 332 (2000). It is an extraordinary remedy and
is proper only when the plaintiff is without an adequate legal remedy. Keaton v Village of
Beverly Hills, 202 Mich App 681, 683; 509 NW2d 544 (1993). Issuance of a writ of mandamus
requires that (1) the plaintiff have a clear legal right to performance of the specific duty sought
be compelled; (2) the defendant have a clear legal duty to perform such act; and (3) the act must
be ministerial, "where the law prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with such
precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment." Id.
(citations omitted). The burden of proving entitlement to the writ is on the party seeking it.
McDonald's Corp v Canton Twp, 177 Mich App 153, 156; 441 NW2d 37 (1989). We review a
circuit court's grant of a writ of mandamus for an abuse of discretion. In re MCI
Telecommunications Complaint, 460 Mich 396,443; 596 NW2d 164 (1999).
Defendant Martin denied plaintiffs request to conduct an on-camera interview of inmate
Kevorkian based on defendant MDOC's administrative rule, R 791.6605, which governs prisoner
access to the media and, in its form at the time at issue, provided:
-l-
SNIPPETS:
CORRECTIONS, BILL MARTIN and DAN
Defendants appeal as of right from the circuit court's July 19, 2000 order that granted in
Lee v Macomb Co Bd of Comm `~3, 235 Mich App 323,331; 597 NW2d 545 Iv gtd 617 NW2d 332.
Keaton v Village of Beverly Hills, 202 Mich App 681, 683;
Issuance of a writ of mandamus requires that the plaintiff have a clear legal right to
A prisoner in general population shall be allowed uncensored correspondence with, and
A prisoner in general population may submit uncensored manuscripts to publishers and may
Prisoners permitted outside an institution for rehabilitative or public service purposes may
The department shall grant requests for personal interviews of a prisoner iJ` the number and
A prisoner shall be allowed telephone access to a news media representative subject to
We must first address whether defendants, pursuant to the language of the rule effective at
Mandamus may compel the exercise of discretion, but may not compel its exercise in a
In other words, mandamus is neither appropriate to review or control the exercise of
supra at 512.
Because defendants' decision to deny plaintiffs request for an on-camera interview involved
Given our resolution of the instant matter, we need not address defendants' additional
It was having subsequently demonstrated the exercise of discretion, providing the court with
|
