Opinion
No. 349515
08-13-2020
CHAD RICHARD DIEDERICH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTRAL MICHIGAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN, Defendant-Appellee.
If this opinion indicates that it is "FOR PUBLICATION," it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. UNPUBLISHED Gratiot Circuit Court
LC No. 2018-000291-AW Before: MURRAY, C.J., and CAVANAGH and SWARTZLE, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals by right the trial court's order denying his request for mandamus relief and fees and costs. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument. MCR 7.214(E)(1).
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was a prisoner incarcerated at the Central Michigan Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan. On September 22, 2018, plaintiff filed two grievances. The first, 3TF-18-09-0803-14F ("14F"), requested the return of copies that were confiscated from him as contraband in the prison law library. The second, STF-18-10-0869-11Z ("11Z"), requested the return of additional confiscated documents. On October 1, 2018, plaintiff submitted a third, unnumbered, grievance form requesting that the grievance coordinator assign identifying numbers to his September 22, 2018 complaints. Plaintiff stated that on October 5, 2018, the grievance coordinator shredded the October 1 grievance form without responding to it. On October 15, 2018, the grievance coordinator assigned identifiers for both September grievances, but plaintiff claims that he was not given appeal forms. On October 16, 2018, plaintiff was transferred to a different prison.
On November 29, 2018, the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) responded to plaintiff's 14F grievance and noted that the document had been located and forwarded to plaintiff's new prison. Plaintiff alleges that he was never given an appeal form for 14F. Defendant stated that plaintiff never filed a Step II grievance for 14F, but on February 6, 2019, plaintiff received a receipt acknowledging his Step II appeal for 14F. Plaintiff's 11Z grievance was appealed through Step II and Step III and was denied when MDOC could not locate the document that plaintiff claimed was not returned.
On December 17, 2018, plaintiff filed a complaint requesting that the circuit court issue a writ of mandamus commanding defendant to provide Step II appeal forms for 11Z and 14F, and to assign a grievance identifier for another October 17 grievance. The circuit court ordered defendant to show cause within 42 days, and ordered plaintiff to serve defendant with a copy. Defendant did not respond until April 8, 2019. The circuit court held a hearing on April 1, 2019, and found defendant to be in default and awarded plaintiff fees and costs. However, the circuit court set aside the default on June 4, 2019, because defendant had not received notice of the April 1 hearing due to a service error made by the court. On June 13, 2019, the circuit court entered an order denying plaintiff's request for mandamus relief as well as plaintiff's request for fees and costs.
II. ANALYSIS
A. MANDAMUS RELIEF
Plaintiff first argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by refusing to grant plaintiff mandamus relief. We disagree.
We review for abuse of discretion a circuit court's decision on whether to grant mandamus relief. Berry v Garrett, 316 Mich App 37, 41; 890 NW2d 882 (2016). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388; 719 NW2d 809 (2006).
A writ of mandamus is an "extraordinary" remedy, MCR 3.301(A)(1)(c), to which a plaintiff is entitled only if he satisfies a four-part test:
To obtain the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus, the plaintiff must show that (1) the plaintiff has a clear, legal right to performance of the specific duty sought, (2) the defendant has a clear legal duty to perform, (3) the act is ministerial, and (4) no other adequate legal or equitable remedy exists that might achieve the same result. In relation to a request for mandamus, a clear, legal right is one clearly founded in, or granted by, law; a right which is inferable as a matter of law from uncontroverted facts regardless of the difficulty of the legal question to be decided. [Berry, 316 Mich App at 41 (quotation marks and citation omitted).]However, the Michigan Supreme Court "has held that if the question is moot and the granting of a writ of mandamus would serve no purpose, then mandamus should be denied." Ziegler v Brown, 339 Mich 390, 395; 63 NW2d 677 (1954).
Plaintiff argues that defendant should have been mandated to comply with the requirements of MDOC policy directive 03.02.130(X), which requires grievance coordinators to "log and assign a unique identifying number to each Step I grievance received, including those that may be rejected," and policy directive 03.02.130(DD), which requires grievants to receive Step II appeal forms after a Step I decision had been made.
First, plaintiff argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff's request for mandamus relief regarding an appeal form for 14F. Although the circuit court erred by concluding that plaintiff had not filed a Step II appeal for 14F, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's request for mandamus relief. Plaintiff asked the circuit court to compel defendant to carry out his duty to provide plaintiff with an appeal form for 14F. However, defendant acknowledged plaintiff's Step II appeal for 14F by issuing a receipt on February 6, 2019. Therefore, forcing defendant to issue another appeal form would have been of no consequence because plaintiff had already appealed grievance 14F to Step II. Further, providing the appeal form would have been of no consequence because MDOC responded that the document was located and forwarded to plaintiff at his new prison. A writ of mandamus is properly denied when the request is moot and the requested relief would serve no purpose. Ziegler, 339 Mich at 395. Therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's request for mandamus relief.
Plaintiff next argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to address his complaint regarding the October 1, 2018 grievance. However, plaintiff did not request any mandamus relief regarding the October 1 grievance. MCR 2.111(B)(2) provides that a complaint must contain a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by not addressing the grievance in its opinion. Moreover, even if plaintiff had requested mandamus relief, such relief would have been properly denied because identifying numbers were assigned to plaintiff's September 22, 2018 complaints by the grievance coordinator. Accordingly, mandamus relief would serve no purpose. See Ziegler, 339 Mich at 395.
B. FEES AND COSTS
Plaintiff next argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by refusing to grant plaintiff fees and costs. We disagree.
We review for an abuse of discretion a trial court's decision to not award fees and costs. Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519, 526; 751 NW2d 472 (2008). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. Maldonado, 476 Mich at 388.
Plaintiff does not explain in his brief on appeal why he would be entitled to fees and costs after his request for mandamus relief was denied, nor does he offer any legal authority to support his claim. "An appellant may not merely announce a position then leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for the appellant's claims; nor may an appellant give an issue only cursory treatment with little or no citation of authority." Cheesman v Williams, 311 Mich App 147, 161; 874 NW2d 385 (2015). Further, "failure to properly address the merits of his assertion of error constitutes abandonment of the issue." Woods v SLB Prop Mgt, LLC, 277 Mich App 622, 627; 750 NW2d 228 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, plaintiff has abandoned this issue.
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Brock A. Swartzle