Whether dismissal of a claim based on failure to comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) must be with prejudice; MCL 600.5507(3)(b); “Prisoner” status; MCL 600.5531(e); The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA)

In an order in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the court reversed in part the Court of Appeals judgment (see eJournal # 81665 in the 6/6/24 edition) and remanded, holding “that the PLRA does not require dismissal with prejudice when a plaintiff fails to comply with the statute’s procedural requirements for filing suit.” It also found a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether one of the plaintiffs was a “prisoner” under the PLRA when the complaint was filed. Plaintiffs (current and former Wayne County Jail inmates) alleged “that defendants created a sexually hostile prison environment in violation of” the ELCRA. The trial court granted defendants summary disposition against all but one plaintiff based on failure to comply with the PLRA’s requirements. It dismissed them with prejudice. The Court of Appeals ruled that because they “failed to comply with the PLRA disclosure requirements, their claims must be dismissed with prejudice.” The court disagreed, finding that nothing in the PLRA’s language “directs the trial court to dismiss a case with prejudice for failure to comply with the PLRA’s procedural requirements.” The court concluded the “Court of Appeals erred by holding that because MCL 600.5507(3)(b) uses the mandatory term ‘shall,’ instead of a discretionary term, the dismissal must be with prejudice. Reading the mandatory dismissal language in MCL 600.5507(3)(b) to require mandatory dismissal with prejudice inserts an additional requirement into the statute that the Legislature did not include.” The court noted that nothing in its order “affects a trial court’s discretionary authority to dismiss a claim with prejudice when the circumstances justify such a sanction[.]” Next, it noted that the lower courts failed to consider whether plaintiff-Anson “was ‘subject to’ incarceration or detention at the time that the underlying complaint was filed, thus subjecting her to the” PLRA’s requirements. She was booked into the jail the same day the complaint was filed. It “was filed at 1:25 p.m., while the booking sheet indicates Anson was booked at 8:43 p.m. However, nothing in the record indicates the time she was initially subject to incarceration or detention.” The court directed the trial court to resolve this issue on remand.