STACY HAWKINS V DEPT OF CORRECTIONS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
STACY HAWKINS,
UNPUBLISHED
February 3, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 244578
Court of Claims
LC No. 02-000105-MP
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and O’Connell and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the order dismissing his claim for failure to comply with
MCL 600.5507. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
MCL 600.5507 provides in part:
(2) A prisoner who brings a civil action or appeals a judgment concerning
prison conditions shall, upon commencement of the action or initiation of the
appeal, disclose the number of civil actions and appeals that the prisoner has
previously initiated.
(3) The court shall dismiss a civil action or appeal at any time, regardless
of any filing fee that may have been paid, if the court finds any of the following:
* * *
(b) The prisoner fails to comply with the disclosure requirements of
subsection (2).
Plaintiff argues that the statute violates the separation of powers doctrine by infringing on
our Supreme Court’s authority to promulgate rules for the judiciary. We will find that a statute
violates the Supreme Court’s rule-making authority, Const 1963, art 6, § 5, only if we cannot
identify any clear legislative policy that reflects considerations beyond the judicial resolution of
litigation. McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15, 30; 597 NW2d 148 (1999). Moreover, where no
inherent conflict between a statute and court rule exists, we need not decide whether the statute
improperly infringes on the court’s authority. Id., at 24. We find no inherent conflict here.
-1-
Plaintiff also argues that the statute violates principles of equal protection. If a
classification is not inherently suspect or a fundamental interest is not involved, courts will use
the rational basis test to determine if the classification violates equal protection principles.
People v Pitts, 222 Mich App 260, 273; 564 NW2d 93 (1997). A statute will be upheld under
this test if the classification scheme is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.
Id. Prisoner status is not a suspect class. Proctor v White Lake Twp Police Dept, 248 Mich App
457, 469; 639 NW2d 332 (2001). Special provisions that single out prisoners for disclosure of
their previous complaints rationally relates to “the Legislature’s legitimate interest in conserving
the scarce governmental resources squandered responding to frivolous [actions] by prisoners.”
Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.
