Plaintiff-prisoner’s complaint for a writ of mandamus ordering the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) to give the prosecuting attorney the notice required by MCL 780.131(1) (the 180-day rule)

Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff-prisoner mandamus relief requiring the MDOC to give the prosecuting attorney the notice required by MCL 780.131(1), the court affirmed the dismissal of his complaint. Almost “20 years ago, in case number 02-047915-FC, a jury convicted plaintiff of armed robbery and he was sentenced to” 30 to 90 years. He argued in his direct appeal in that case that the 180-day rule was violated. The court disagreed and affirmed his conviction. The Michigan Supreme Court held that there was no 180-day rule violation because he failed to show “that the MDOC provided the prosecuting attorney with the notice required by MCL 780.131(1).” He filed this action for a writ of mandamus in 2020, unsuccessfully “requesting that the MDOC be ordered to provide the prosecuting attorney with the notice required by MCL 780.131(1) in case number 02-047915-FC.” Plaintiff contended on appeal that he was entitled to such “relief because it was never discussed during his trial or direct appellate process that it was his burden to show that the MDOC provided the prosecuting attorney with the notice required by MCL 780.131(1).” He asserted that defendants had a clear legal duty to give this notice and he had a clear legal right to their performance of that duty. The court disagreed. It instead agreed with the trial court that there was “no ‘untried warrant, indictment, information, or complaint’” pending against him that required “notice under the 180-day rule.” As a result, defendants had “no clear legal duty to issue such notice.” It added that his claim was moot as “such notice would serve no purpose.”