Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 12, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128447 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MITCHELL D. PUGH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128447 

 COA: 260183 

Gratiot CC: 03-008373-AA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 25, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CORRIGAN, J., concurs and states as follows: 

I concur in the order denying leave to appeal. In response to Justice Kelly’s 

dissenting statement, I would note that plaintiff waited until the very last minute to mail 

his application for leave to appeal. Plaintiff placed the document in the prison mail only 

one business day before the filing deadline. There is no indication whatsoever that the 

Michigan Department of Corrections delayed the filing of plaintiff’s application. Rather, 

it was plaintiff’s own belated mailing that caused him to miss the filing deadline. 

Therefore, contrary to Justice Kelly’s view, this is not a case that calls for the adoption of 

a prison mailbox rule. 

KELLY, J., dissents and states as follows: 

Defendant lost his right to seek an appeal because his petition arrived at the court 

one day late. Defendant placed his petition in the prison mailbox on January 7. The 

deadline for filing was January 10. Prison officials put the petition in the United States 

mail on January 10, and it was delivered on January 11. Because it was one day late, 

plaintiff lost his right to seek an appeal. 
 _________________________________________ 

 

 

2 

Justice Corrigan suggests that, because defendant waited until the last day to mail 

his application, he is no longer entitled to his appeal as of right. I believe that defendant 

is given no less time within which to file than is someone who is not incarcerated. It 

would be fundamentally unfair to conclude otherwise. 

In order to remedy the wrong done in this case, the Court should adopt a prison 

mailbox rule. It could make filing of appeals effective as of the date a prisoner puts his 

petition in the hands of prison authorities. This would compensate for the fact that the 

prisoner cannot go to the court to file his petition and cannot even get to a United States 

Postal Service mailbox, as others can. 

Approximately 18 states have adopted a prison mailbox rule. Eighteen years ago, 

the United States Supreme Court in Houston v Lack1

 wrote, “[T]he pro se prisoner has no 

choice but to entrust the forwarding of his notice of appeal to prison authorities when he 

cannot control or supervise and we may have every incentive to delay.” 

Federal appellate courts have adopted a formal prison mailbox rule. FRAP 4(c). 

Michigan should accord prisoners the same access to the courts. 

1

 487 US 266, 271; 108 S Ct 2379; 101 L Ed 2d 245 (1988). 

s0509 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 12, 2006 

Clerk