Opinion
Docket Nos. 152406 152435. COA Nos. 321756 321013.
03-30-2016
John DOE 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, John Doe 5, John Doe 6, and John Doe 7, on behalf of themselves and a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Governor of the State of Michigan, Director of Michigan Department of Corrections, Deputy Director of MDOC Correctional Facilities Administration, Former Deputy Director of MDOC Correctional Facilities Administration, Chief Deputy Director of MDOC Correctional Facilities Administration, Warden of Carson City Correctional Facility, Warden of Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center, Warden of Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility, Warden of Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Warden of Oaks Correctional Facility, Warden of Thumb Correctional Facility, Warden of Chippewa Correctional Facility, Warden of Marquette Branch Prison, and Warden of Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility, Defendants–Appellees. John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, John Doe 5, John Doe 6, and John Doe 7, on behalf of themselves and a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Department of Corrections, Governor of the State of Michigan, Director of Michigan Department of Corrections, Deputy Director of MDOC Correctional Facilities Administration, Former Deputy Director of MDOC Correctional Facilities Administration, Chief Deputy Director of MDOC Correctional Facilities Administration, Warden of Carson City Correctional Facility, Warden of Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center, Warden of Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility, Warden of Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Warden of Oaks Correctional Facility, Warden of Thumb Correctional Facility, Warden of Chippewa Correctional Facility, Warden of Marquette Branch Prison, and Warden of Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility, Defendants–Appellees.
Order
On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the August 25, 2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals opinion considering whether the defendants were precluded, under principles of collateral estoppel, from arguing that the 1999 amendment to the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2301(b), is constitutional and whether the 1999 amendment to the Civil Rights Act violates equal protection. In light of the Court of Appeals ruling that plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, MCL 600.5501 et seq. , it was unnecessary to resolve the remaining issues. In all other respects, the applications for leave to appeal are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.