CHARLES ALI THOMPSON V DEPT OF CORRECTIONS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CHARLES ALI THOMPSON,
UNPUBLISHED
October 21, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 197453
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 95-080323-CZ
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Michael J. Kelly, P. ., and Reilly and Jansen, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting defendant summary disposition and dismissing
plaintiff’s claim brought pursuant to 42 USC 1983 for damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief
following the January 5, 1995 forfeiture of eighty-five days of his prisoner good time credit. We affirm.
Plaintiff first argues that Dennis Straub acted without authority when he ordered the forfeiture of
plaintiff’s good time credit following plaintiff’s conviction of a major misconduct violation for threatening
behavior. We disagree. Plaintiff argues that pursuant to MCL 800.33(8); MSA 28.1403(8),
administrative code, 1979 AC, R791.5513, and departmental policy directive, 03.01.100 [formerly
PD-DWA-45.01], only the warden can order the forfeiture of good-time credits and that Straub was
not the warden of the Cotton correctional facility at the time he ordered the forfeiture. Defendant
presented evidence that Straub was duly appointed to serve as acting warden of the Cotton facility on
March 23, 1994. Plaintiff argues that it was error for the trial court to consider this documentary
evidence because an affidavit and memorandum should not be given precedence over a statute,
administrative rule or policy directive. However, the trial court did not give this documentary evidence
precedence over existing law. Instead, it applied the existing law to the facts demonstrated by the
documentary evidence. Plaintiff produced no evidence that Straub had not been properly appointed
acting warden on March 23, 1994. As a result, his argument must fail because his good-time credits
were forfeited by the warden. The trial court correctly held that there was no genuine issue of material
fact and that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Patterson v Kleiman, 447 Mich
429, 434; 526 NW2d 879 (1994); Bertrand v Alan Ford, Inc, 449 Mich 606, 617-618; 537 NW2d
185 (1995).
-1
Plaintiff next argues that defendant’s motion for summary disposition was “frivolous” and should
have been “stricken” by the trial court. We disagree. Defendant’s motion met none of the criteria for
finding a claim frivolous where defendant ultimately prevailed and plaintiff presented no evidence that
defendant had any basis to believe that its position was anything but true or that it had no legal merit.
MCL 600.2591(3); MSA 27A.2591(3).
Plaintiff argues last that he was deprived of a constitutionally protected liberty interest without
due process of law. We disagree. This Court has held that MCL 800.33(5); MSA 28.1403(5), which
provides for the forfeiture of good time credit upon a major misconduct violation, does not violate due
process provided a hearing is conducted with regard to the underlying major misconduct charge.
Tessin v Dep’t of Corrections (After Remand), 197 Mich App 236, 241; 495 NW2d 397 (1992).
Plaintiff did not allege or present evidence showing that a hearing was not conducted or was conducted
improperly when he was convicted on December 15, 1994 of threatening behavior, the major
misconduct charge that was the basis for the forfeiture. In the absence of any allegations of conduct that
amounted to a deprivation of constitutional rights, defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Patterson supra at 434; Bertrand, supra at 617-618.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Maureen Pulte Reilly
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.