Sexually hostile environment & racial discrimination under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act; Whether plaintiffs who were on probation or parole (not physically incarcerated) at the time of the filing of the lawsuit were “prisoners” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA); MCL 600.5531(c); Distinguishing People v Holder & Anderson v Myers; Plaintiffs currently incarcerated elsewhere as “prisoners”; Dismissal with prejudice under the PLRA; Doe v Department of Corrs; Class certification

The court concluded the trial court erred in holding “that those plaintiffs who were on probation or parole, and not physically incarcerated at the time this lawsuit was filed, were ‘prisoners.’” Thus, the trial court erred in dismissing those plaintiffs for failing to comply with the PLRA’s requirements. As for the “plaintiffs who were incarcerated, including those incarcerated elsewhere than the Wayne County Jail, the trial court correctly determined that [they] were ‘prisoners’ and were obligated to comply with the PLRA.” Plaintiffs did not challenge the trial court’s determination of noncompliance and the court concluded “the trial court correctly determined, as to those plaintiffs who were ‘prisoners’ at the time this lawsuit was filed, that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate. Finally, the trial court correctly denied class certification.” Thus, the court affirmed “the denial of class certification and the dismissal with prejudice as to those plaintiffs who were ‘prisoners’ at the time” the lawsuit was filed. It reversed the dismissal of the claims by plaintiffs who were not “prisoners” and remanded for reinstatement of those claims. In this case concerning conditions in the Wayne County Jail, plaintiffs asserted “the trial court erred when it included former detainees, such as probationers and parolees, in the definition of ‘prisoner’ under the PLRA, and none of the detained prisoners was incarcerated at the Wayne County jail at the time the complaint was filed, which also excluded them from status as a ‘prisoner.’” The court concluded “that those plaintiffs who were on probation or parole, and not physically incarcerated, at the time of the filing of the lawsuit are not ‘prisoners’ for purposes of the PLRA.” It held that “the terms ‘prisoner’ can only apply to a person on parole, probation, pretrial release, or in a diversionary program who is ‘subject to incarceration’ as a result of being ‘accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for’ a violation of the terms of the parole, probation, pretrial release, or divisionary program.” However, the PLRA’s definition of a prisoner “includes any person currently incarcerated and does not limit itself to those prisoners still imprisoned in the facility at issue in the complaint.” Thus, the court concluded “that those plaintiffs who were previously incarcerated at the Wayne County Jail but at the time of the filing of this lawsuit were incarcerated elsewhere are still within the definition of ‘prisoner’ and were required to satisfy the requirements of the PLRA.” Next, the court considered whether the dismissal of some of the claims for compliance failures “should have been with or without prejudice. Although the case law on this point is limited and murky, we conclude that the trial court was correct in granting the dismissal with prejudice.” It found support for this conclusion in Doe.