If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

NAKYRRA HOGAN, ANNETTE MARTIN, 

SHANNA KATRELL MCELROY, LISA MOORE, 

KRISTA ANSON, KRYSTLE ANN BEGLEY, 

RACHEL LYNN MILLER, NADAWA ALI, 

ARNEATA CHANTELL COBBS, JORDAN 

SEPULVEDA, and NICHOLE THOMAS, on Behalf 

of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

UNPUBLISHED

May 30, 2024

v No. 362259

Wayne Circuit Court

WAYNE COUNTY, WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF, 

and WAYNE COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF,

LC No. 20-016367-CZ

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: FEENEY, P.J., and REDFORD and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this action involving allegations of a sexually hostile environment and racial 

discrimination under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq., and the 

application of the prison litigation reform act (PLRA), MCL 600.5501 et seq., plaintiffs Nakyrra 

Hogan, Annette Martin, Shanna Katrell McElroy, Lisa Moore, Krista Anson, Krystle Ann Begley, 

Rachel Lynn Miller, Nadawa Ali, Arneata Chantell Cobbs, Jordan Sepulveda, and Nichole 

Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appeal by leave granted1the 

April 27, 2022 order of Wayne Circuit Court denying plaintiffs’ second renewed motion for class 

certification and granting, in part, summary disposition in favor of defendants Wayne County, the 

Wayne County Sheriff, and the Wayne County Deputy Sheriff, under MCR 2.116(C)(8) (failure 

 

1 Hogan v Wayne Co, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered January 12, 2023 (Docket 

No. 362259).
-2-

to state a claim). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent 

with this opinion. 

Because plaintiffs failed to satisfy the requirements of commonality, typicality, and 

superiority, the trial court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. We also find 

that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition in favor of defendants because the PLRA 

does not apply to former detainees, plaintiffs satisfied the disclosure requirements of the PLRA, 

former detainees are not required to exhaust their available remedies and there is a question of fact 

regarding the availability of administrative remedies.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is the third case involving the same claims and parties to be filed in the Wayne Circuit 

Court. The first two, Wayne Circuit Court LC Nos. 20-003830-CZ and 20-014725-CZ, were 

voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On December 16, 2020, plaintiffs refiled the identical 

claims in this action.2 This complaint included disclosures under § 5507 of the PLRA, MCL 

600.5507, listing several civil actions concerning prison conditions that plaintiffs previously 

commenced, but plaintiffs did not reference other civil domestic relations cases that they 

commenced.

 Plaintiffs asserted they were pursuing this action on behalf of “female detainees and/or 

inmates who were, are, or will be detained and/or confined by the Wayne County Sheriff in the 

Wayne County Jail.” Plaintiffs alleged that they and similarly situated female inmates were 

subjected to strip searches, en masse, in view of male officers and staff who laughed and mocked 

them, commented on their physical appearance, and discussed sexual activities. Plaintiffs also 

alleged that these strip searches were conducted under unsanitary conditions that posed serious 

health risks to inmates, such as group strip searches with women who were menstruating, inmates 

forced to stand in close proximity to each other while naked, and feces, blood, and vomit on the

floors or benches of the jail. Plaintiffs further alleged that they were routinely called names such 

as “bitches,” “whores,” “crackheads,” “funky monkeys,” and “bleeding hogs.” In addition, 

plaintiffs alleged that they, and other female detainees, were routinely exposed to male officers or 

trustees while showering, using the toilet, or otherwise undressed. Plaintiffs asserted that, as a 

result of defendants’ actions, policies, and practices, they and the proposed class “have suffered 

and are at risk of suffering irreparable harm, including but not limited to verbal sexual assault and 

sexual harassment, severe emotional distress and mental trauma, degrading treatment, and the 

deprivations of their rights under Michigan law.” 

Asserting that this action was brought under MCR 3.501, plaintiffs described the proposed 

class as including “all similarly situated female detainees and/or inmates who were detained and/or 

housed by the Wayne County Sheriff in the Wayne County Jail and who were, or will be, sexually

harassed by Defendants, jail staff, and/or other inmates” between March 2017 and the present. 

 

2 Plaintiffs Sepulveda, Anson, and Thomas also filed a federal action against defendants, which 

was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Sepulveda v Co of Wayne, 

unpublished opinion of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, issued 

October 25, 2019 (Case No. 19-11407). 
-3-

Plaintiffs asserted that the proposed class likely exceeded several thousand members and a class 

action was the most practicable method for challenging defendants’ policies, practices, and 

procedures, the questions of fact and law were common to the class, the alleged violations and 

harm were typical of that suffered by all class members, the class representatives will fairly and 

adequately protect the interests of all class members, plus the proposed class action was superior 

to other methods of adjudication and “will promote the convenient administration of justice.” 

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants were aware since 2012 that female detainees or inmates 

had complained of verbal abuse and sexual harassment at the jail but defendants failed to take steps 

or implement policies and procedures to alleviate the abuse and sexual harassment. Plaintiffs then 

described numerous examples of the alleged abuse and harassment, including specific instances of 

verbal abuse, sexual harassment, and/or racial discrimination suffered by each of the 11 named 

plaintiffs. In Count I, plaintiffs alleged defendants had created a sexually hostile environment in 

violation of the ELCRA, MCL 37.2103(i). In Count II, plaintiffs alleged that defendants had 

violated the ELCRA by failing to remedy the sexually hostile environment and abusive conduct. 

In Count III, plaintiffs alleged that defendants had aided and abetted in the creation of a hostile 

environment in violation of MCL 37.2701. In Count IV, plaintiffs alleged that defendants 

discriminated against plaintiffs on the basis of race and created a racially hostile environment in 

violation of MCL 37.2103 and MCL 37.270. Plaintiffs asserted that they and other class members 

had suffered severe emotional and psychological injuries, increased punishment, and lost income;

plaintiffs requested that the court certify this case as a class action under MCR 3.501, and award 

damages, including punitive and exemplary damages, costs, and attorney fees.

CLASS CERTIFICATION

A. Motion for Class Certification 

On February 5, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to MCR 

3.501(A), requesting an order defining two separate classes of women who had been housed, 

detained, or incarcerated at the Wayne County Jail (jail) facilities from March 11, 2017, until the 

date of judgment or settlement of this case. The first class comprised women who had been 

subjected to sexual harassment during strip searches who allege they have compensable injury as 

a result. The second proposed class comprised women who were subjected to racial discrimination 

during strip searches who allege they suffered compensable injury as a result. In support of the 

motion, defendants relied extensively on a federal district court decision in which a similar class 

action was certified against the same defendants, Woodall v Co of Wayne, unpublished opinion of 

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, issued January 23, 2020 (Case 

No. 17-13707) (Woodall I), rev’d sub nom Woodall v Wayne Co, unpublished opinion of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, issued November 15, 2021 (Case No. 20-

1705) (Woodall II). Plaintiffs attached approximately 600 affidavits or statements describing 

alleged sexual harassment and racial discrimination experienced at the jail.

Defendants advanced two primary arguments in opposition to this motion. First, 

defendants asserted that the class definitions proposed by plaintiffs lacked the objective criteria 

needed to determine class membership. Second, defendants contended that plaintiffs failed to 

satisfy the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and superiority requirements of MCR 
-4-

3.501(A)(1). The trial court agreed with defendants’ argument and denied class certification on 

the basis that “there is not objective criteria.”

The following day, defendants filed a motion for summary disposition in lieu of an answer, 

seeking dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(5), (6), (7), (8), and (9). 

Defendants asserted that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the PLRA, the ELCRA does not apply 

to prison services, and plaintiffs’ claims were barred because they were already members of a 

federal class action certified in Woodall I. In the alternative, defendants requested that this action 

be stayed pending resolution by the Sixth Circuit of the appeal of the decision in Woodall I. 

Two weeks later, plaintiffs refiled their motion for class certification, revising their 

proposed class definitions in an attempt to provide objective criteria for the class. Defendants 

responded that the revised definitions did not cure the defects because the revised definitions 

allowed class membership to be determined by the putative class members themselves.

On November 15, 2021, the Sixth Circuit issued its decision reversing the decision in 

Woodall I, concluding that the four classes defined by the district court failed to meet the 

requirements of commonality and typicality, the lead plaintiffs who were no longer incarcerated 

could not represent a class that includes incarcerated prisoners, and the plaintiffs failed to show 

the predominance of common issues. Woodall II, unpub op at 8-14. Following the Sixth Circuit’s 

ruling, the trial court lifted the stay in this action and scheduled a status conference to address the 

pending motions.

B. Second Renewed Motion for Class Certification

On February 9, 2022, plaintiffs filed their second renewed motion for certification of a 

class action; they revised the proposed class definitions to include women who “were formerly” 

housed, detained, or incarcerated at any of the jail divisions from March 11, 2017, to the date of 

judgment, who experienced “verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature” 

during strip searches, or were “subjected to racial discrimination while undergoing strip searches.” 

In the supporting brief, plaintiffs briefly repeated their factual allegations, attaching more than 900 

pages of affidavits and declarations from women describing various instances of sexual harassment 

and racial discrimination during strip searches at the jail. Plaintiffs also addressed the Sixth 

Circuit’s decision in Woodall II, asserting that the decision supported certification of a class action 

in this case.

Addressing the requirements for certification of a class action under MCR 3.501, plaintiffs 

first asserted that the removal of “any reference to ‘compensable injury’ arising ‘as a result of’ 

harassment” from the proposed class definitions and their reference to “verbal or physical conduct 

or communication of a sexual nature” satisfied the requirement for objective criteria, citing Does 

11-18 v Dep’t of Corrections, 323 Mich App 479; 917 NW2d 730 (2018). Next, plaintiffs asserted 

that they satisfied the numerosity requirement of MCR 3.501(A)(1)(a), explaining that they had 

attached 615 declarations from former inmates of the jail, of which 85 fell within the relevant class 

period. Plaintiffs then addressed the commonality requirement, acknowledging that the specific 

circumstances of each woman’s experience might vary, but asserting that a common theme was 

demonstrated, “whether because they were forcibly exposed to men, strip searched in groups with 
-5-

other inmates or while being subjected to vulgar, sexually explicit derogatory comments by jail 

staff.” 

Plaintiffs also asserted that they satisfied the typicality requirement for class certification, 

contending that the distinctions between plaintiffs’ claims and those of the proposed class members 

do not preclude typicality and the claims of plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the unnamed class 

members. Next, addressing the adequacy of representation, plaintiffs asserted that plaintiffs’ 

counsel had experience in both civil rights and class action litigation, noted that plaintiffs’ counsel 

had been litigating a class action against defendants in federal court for the past 10 years and had 

been appointed as class counsel after the federal district court certified the class action, and 

contended that there were no conflicts of interest between the class members or plaintiffs. Finally, 

plaintiffs contended that a class action was the most convenient method of deciding the legal 

questions presented.

C. Renewed Motion to Dismiss

On February 10, 2022, defendants filed their renewed motion for summary disposition. 

Defendants reiterated that plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed under the PLRA for three reasons. 

First, defendants asserted that seven of the named plaintiffs had failed to disclose a number of civil 

actions in which they had been involved, in violation of MCL 600.5505. Citing Anderson v Myers, 

268 Mich App 713; 709 NW2d 171 (2005), and People v Holder, 483 Mich 168, 174; 767 NW2d 

423 (2009), defendants contended that the PLRA applies equally to plaintiffs who are incarcerated 

at the time the action is filed as well as plaintiffs on parole or probation. Second, defendants 

asserted that none of the named plaintiffs had exhausted their administrative remedies provided 

under the Wayne County grievance procedures, as required by MCL 600.5503(1). Third, 

defendants argued that plaintiffs’ claims were barred because they failed to plead or show evidence 

of a physical injury, as required under MCL 600.5511(1). Finally, defendants also sought summary 

disposition on the basis that the ELCRA does not apply to persons serving sentences of 

imprisonment in state or county correctional facilities.

Plaintiffs responded one week later, contending that the PLRA did not apply to plaintiffs 

because they were not prisoners of the Wayne County jail at the time this action was filed. Citing 

MCL 600.5503(1), plaintiffs contended that the statute applied only to prisoners who file an action 

concerning their current prison conditions. Thus, plaintiffs reasoned, the PLRA did not apply to 

prisoners incarcerated in another facility who assert claims arising from their former detention at 

the jail. Characterizing this Court’s discussion of this issue in Anderson as dicta, plaintiffs also 

argued that the PLRA did not apply to former detainees of the jail who were on parole or probation 

at the time their complaints were filed. Citing nine federal appellate court decisions interpreting 

the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 USC 1997e, plaintiffs urged denial of the motion for 

summary disposition because none of the named plaintiffs was a prisoner of the jail at the time the 

complaint was filed.

Plaintiffs rejected defendants’ assertion that they had failed to comply with the disclosure 

requirements of the PLRA, noting that the undisclosed civil actions defendants cited were 

paternity, divorce, child support, or other actions unrelated to prison conditions. They also rejected 

defendants’ assertion that the complaint must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies, contending that defendants’ grievance policy was clearly permissive rather than 
-6-

mandatory. In addition, plaintiffs asserted that defendants’ policy exempts the types of claims 

alleged in the complaint from the grievance procedure and designates the proper method of 

conducting a strip search as a nongrievable issue. Moreover, plaintiffs contended, there was a 

question of fact whether the grievance procedure was functional or available, and exhaustion was 

not required. 

Next, plaintiffs addressed defendants’ contention that the PLRA requires a showing of 

physical injury in order to recover. Noting that no Michigan caselaw has addressed this issue, 

plaintiffs again turned to federal law interpreting 42 USC 1997e, and contended that barring claims 

alleging violations of civil or constitutional rights on this basis would violate plaintiffs’ rights to 

due process and equal protection. In conclusion, plaintiffs asserted that this Court’s decision in 

Does 11-18 is binding precedent that forecloses defendants’ contention that the ELCRA does not 

apply to claims arising from jails or imprisonment and any ruling that the PLRA bars plaintiffs’ 

claims under the ELCRA would be unconstitutional.

D. Motion Hearing

The trial court heard arguments on both motions on April 5, 2022. Opening with a 

discussion of their motion for summary disposition, defendants first reiterated their contention that 

the PLRA’s definition of “prisoner” includes persons on parole or probation, and the complaint 

must be dismissed because the plain language of the PLRA required a showing of physical injury, 

which plaintiffs had failed to allege. Addressing the exhaustion requirement, defendants explained 

that only two named plaintiffs had filed grievances, none of whom had exhausted their 

administrative remedies, and allowing them to circumvent the exhaustion requirement because 

they were no longer incarcerated in the jail would defeat the purpose of the PLRA. Next, 

defendants discussed the PLRA’s disclosure requirement, contending that the statute required 

disclosure of all prior litigation without limitation.

Responding to this argument, plaintiffs noted that the trial court had ruled in an earlier case 

that the PLRA did not apply to plaintiffs because they were former inmates and none had been 

adjudicated to be in violation of the terms of their probation or parole. Addressing the requirement 

for physical injury under the PLRA, plaintiffs contended that federal courts have uniformly ruled 

that no physical injury is necessary when constitutional or civil rights violations are alleged, and 

they repeated their contention that the PLRA does not require disclosure of prior litigation 

unrelated to conditions of imprisonment.

Plaintiffs then addressed their motion for class certification, asserting that they had 

established objective criteria for class membership, noting that defendants could easily determine 

whether plaintiffs and putative class members were incarcerated at any given time, explaining that 

they sought certification only on the question of liability for creation of a sexually hostile jail 

environment under the ELCRA, and suggesting that the issue of damages could be treated 

separately. Defendants disagreed, contending that class certification was precluded because each 

plaintiff described different acts of discrimination or harassment with no means to distinguish 

between those who allege various types sexual harassment and those who allege racial 

discrimination. In response to questioning by the court, defendants acknowledged that class actions 

had been certified in other sexual harassment cases but distinguished this case on the basis that 

defendants’ policy clearly prohibited the type of conduct plaintiffs alleged.
-7-

E. Opinion and Order

The trial court issued its opinion and order on April 27, 2022, initially noting that two 

earlier cases involving the same parties and claims had been voluntarily dismissed without 

prejudice, and explaining that plaintiffs in this case were also plaintiffs in Woodall I. After a brief 

recitation of the facts and procedural background of this case, the trial court first addressed 

plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a class action, listing the MCR 3.501(A)(1) requirements for 

class certification as “numerosity,” “commonality,” “typicality,” “adequacy,” and “superiority;” it 

also noted that strict adherence to these requirements is required, citing Henry v Dow Chem Co, 

484 Mich 483; 772 NW2d 301 (2009).

The trial court rejected defendants’ contention that the motion for class certification was 

untimely, then it ruled that the proposed class, defined as women detained in the jail between 2017 

and the present who were subject to strip searches, was objective and ascertainable but nevertheless 

subject to requirements of MCR 3.501(A)(1). Noting the number of affidavits and declarations 

plaintiffs submitted, the court agreed that plaintiffs had satisfied the numerosity requirement of 

MCR 3.501(A)(1)(a). Noting the disparate experiences that plaintiffs and the putative class 

members described, however, the court ruled that plaintiffs had failed to identify any common 

evidence to determine liability and did not satisfy the commonality requirement of MCR 

3.501(A)(1)(b). Similarly, because each plaintiff’s experience was different from the others, the 

court concluded that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the typicality requirement of MCR 3.501(A)(1)(c). 

The court agreed that plaintiffs’ counsel was qualified to pursue this action and plaintiffs had 

satisfied the adequacy requirement of MCR 3.501(A)(1)(d), but it also concluded that a class action 

would be unmanageable because of the differing experiences of plaintiffs and they had failed to 

satisfy the superiority requirement of MCR 3.501(A)(1)(e). Thus, the court denied plaintiffs’ 

motion for certification of a class action. 

Turning to defendants’ renewed motion for summary disposition, the court explained that 

the PLRA’s applicability is determined by the plaintiff’s status as a prisoner, as defined by MCL 

600.5531(e), at the time the action is filed, citing Anderson, 268 Mich App at 713. The court 

agreed with defendants’ assertion that the PLRA’s definition of “prisoner” includes persons 

detained in a correctional facility as well as persons who were on parole or probation at the time 

the action was filed. After examining defendants’ exhibits, the court determined that plaintiffs, 

with the exception of Cobbs, were either incarcerated or on probation or parole at the time the 

complaint was filed and concluded that they were subject to the PLRA.

Addressing the disclosure requirement of the PLRA, MCL 600.5507(2), the trial court 

found that plaintiffs had satisfied the requirement with respect to actions filed in state courts. The 

court ruled, however, that plaintiffs had failed to disclose their participation in several federal cases 

related to prison conditions, warranting dismissal on that basis. Next, addressing the PLRA’s 

requirement that prisoners must exhaust their administrative remedies, MCL 600.5503(1), the 

court agreed that plaintiffs had failed to satisfy that requirement and dismissal was warranted under 

MCR 2.116(C)(8). Finally, addressing defendants’ assertion that the PLRA requires a showing of 

physical injury, the trial court acknowledged that no state court had addressed whether the PLRA 

requires an allegation of physical injury where the claim alleges a violation of the ELCRA. 

Because the court ruled that plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the PLRA’s disclosure and exhaustion 

requirements, however, the court declined to rule on that issue.
-8-

Concluding its opinion, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a class 

action, denied defendants’ motion for summary disposition as to plaintiff Cobbs, ruled that the 

remaining plaintiffs had failed to comply with the PLRA’s disclosure and exhaustion requirements, 

granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), and dismissed 

plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.

In a motion for reconsideration filed 21 days later, plaintiffs asserted the trial court had 

erred by dismissing their claims with prejudice, citing federal caselaw holding that dismissal of 

actions filed under the federal PLRA, 42 USC 1997e, is without prejudice. Plaintiffs also asserted 

the trial court had erred by focusing on the variations in plaintiffs’ and putative class members’ 

experiences rather than the common issue regarding the creation of a sexually hostile environment. 

The court denied this motion, explaining that plaintiffs presented “nothing that the Court did not 

previously consider when ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ motion for class 

certification.” Plaintiffs filed an application for leave to appeal in this Court on July 20, 2022. On 

January 12, 2023, this Court granted leave to appeal. Hogan v Wayne Co, unpublished order of 

the Court of Appeals, entered January 12, 2023 (Docket No. 362259).

FORMER DETAINEES AS PRISONERS UNDER THE PLRA

Plaintiffs assert that 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.” We agree.

The proper interpretation and application of the PLRA is a question of law reviewed de 

novo by this Court. Anderson, 268 Mich App at 714. Under de novo review, the legal issues are 

reviewed independently with no deference required to the courts below. Wright v Genesee Co, 

504 Mich 410, 417; 934 NW2d 805 (2019).

A trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition is also reviewed de novo. 

Zaher v Miotke, 300 Mich App 132, 139; 832 NW2d 266 (2013). The trial court stated that it 

granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8). However, the parties clearly relied on 

evidence outside the pleadings, and the trial court considered matters outside the pleadings in 

ruling on the motion. Where the parties and the trial court rely on matters outside the pleadings,

“MCR 2.116(C)(10) is the appropriate basis for review.” Silberstein v Pro-Golf of America, Inc, 

278 Mich App 446, 457; 750 NW2d 615 (2008).

A motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint 

in light of the affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other evidence submitted by the 

parties. Joseph v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 491 Mich 200, 206; 815 NW2d 412 (2012). “Summary 

disposition is appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(10) if there is no genuine issue regarding any 

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” West v Gen Motors 

Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). A genuine issue of material fact exists when 

the record reveals an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ. Id.

A party seeking summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) must support its motion 

with affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other documentary evidence in support of the grounds 

asserted. MCR 2.116(G)(3). If the motion is properly supported, the burden shifts to the opposing 
-9-

party to establish that a genuine issue of disputed fact exists. Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 

Mich 358, 362; 547 NW2d 314 (1996). A reviewing court must consider the pleadings, 

admissions, and other evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Latham v 

Barton Malow Co, 480 Mich 105, 111; 746 NW2d 868 (2008).

We agree with plaintiffs that the statutory definition of “prisoner” in the PLRA excludes 

individuals who are on parole, probation, or pretrial release and were not incarcerated at the time 

the litigation was filed. MCL 600.5531(c) states:

(e) "Prisoner" means a person subject to incarceration, detention, or 

admission to a prison who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated 

delinquent for violations of state or local law or the terms and conditions of parole, 

probation, pretrial release, or a diversionary program.

In interpreting statutes, we “must attempt to avoid any construction that would render 

portions of a statute surplusage or nugatory.” Rouch World, LLC v Dep’t of Civil Rights, 510 Mich 

398, 410-411; 987 NW2d 501 (2022). In the context of this statute, we do not accept the argument 

that an individual who is on probation or parole is a prisoner because they are “subject to” 

incarceration in the event that they violate, on some future occasion, the conditions of their 

probation or parole. To do so would render the final portion of the statute to be mere surplusage. 

That is, if we include individuals who are not physically incarcerated within the definition of 

“prisoner” because they are “subject to incarceration” in the event of a violation of the conditions 

of parole, probation, or pretrial release, then the final phrase referring to “parole, probation, pretrial 

release, or a diversionary program” is unnecessary. Under this argument, there is no need to 

reference parole, probation, pretrial release, or divisionary programs because all such persons who 

violate the terms of their release are “subject to incarceration” in the event of a violation. 

But we must give meaning to the words that follow “prison”: “who is accused of, convicted 

of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for violations of state or local law or the terms and 

conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or a diversionary program.” To do so, we must 

conclude that the phrase “who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent 

for” modifies both “violations of state or local law” and “the terms and conditions of parole, 

probation, pretrial release, or a diversionary program.” Accordingly, 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.

Moreover, defendants’ reliance on the decisions in People v Holder, 483 Mich 168; 767 

NW2d 423 (2009), and Anderson v Myers, 268 Mich App 713; 709 NW2d 171 (2005), is 

misplaced. Holder did not involve the definition of “prisoner” in the PLRA; rather, it dealt with 

the issue of the parole revocation and parole status and the commission of a new crime while on 

parole. And it merely made the observation that a parolee remains in the “legal custody” of the 

Department of Corrections. 483 Mich at 173. The Anderson decision is closer to being on point, 

but reliance on it still falls short. Anderson did consider the definition of “prisoner” under the 

PLRA, but ultimately concluded that the plaintiff was a “prisoner” under the PLRA because he 

was imprisoned at the time the lawsuit was filed. 268 Mich App at 717. The Anderson Court did 
-10-

discuss whether a parolee could be considered a “prisoner” under the PLRA and stated that an 

“argument could certainly be made” in support of that conclusion. Id. But the Court also explicitly 

stated twice in the same paragraph that it was not making such a determination because it did not 

need to do so. Id. at 717-718.

For these reasons, we conclude 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. Accordingly, with respect to that group, we reverse the decision of the trial court. 

CURRENT DETAINEES AS PRISONERS UNDER PLRA 

This conclusion does not, however, resolve the question whether those plaintiffs who were 

incarcerated with the Department of Corrections at the time the lawsuit was filed are considered 

prisoners under the PLRA. This group clearly was “subject to incarceration” due to serving a 

sentence for an offense. Plaintiffs argue that because the PLRA and its restrictions apply to 

prisoners bringing lawsuits regarding prison conditions, MCL 600.5501, MCL 600.5503(1), and 

MCL 600.5507(2), the term “prisoner” must only encompass individuals who were prisoners at 

the facility against which the claim is brought at the time that the claim is brought. There is no 

textual support for this claim. The PLRA’s focus is on providing relief to potential defendants 

from abusive prisoner litigation, especially by serial litigators. See, e.g., MCL 600.5505; MCL 

600.5509. There is no indication that the Legislature was only concerned with prisoner litigation 

against the current place of litigation.3 In sum, the definition of “prisoner” contained in the PLRA 

includes any person currently incarcerated and does not limit itself to those prisoners still 

imprisoned in the facility at issue in the complaint. Accordingly, we conclude 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. 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE UNDER THE PLRA 

Turning to the question of whether those plaintiffs who are subject to the requirements of 

the PLRA satisfied the PRLA’s disclosure and exhaustion requirements, the trial court concluded 

that some of the plaintiffs failed to fully comply with the requirement of disclosing their 

participation in prior litigation as required by MCL 600.5507(2) and that plaintiffs failed to exhaust 

their administrative remedies as required by MCL 600.5503(1). Accordingly, the trial court 

dismissed plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice for these compliance failures. 

On appeal, plaintiffs do not challenge the trial court’s determination of noncompliance with 

the PLRA and the dismissal of their complaint based upon that noncompliance. Plaintiffs do 

challenge on appeal that the dismissal was with prejudice. Accordingly, we do not address the 

 

3

It may be true that in many cases prisoners, once transferred to another institution, may no longer 

have an interest in pursuing a claim regarding prison conditions at a prior institution because the 

transfer itself provides relief from the conditions. But, as the allegations in this case demonstrate, 

that would not be the case where the injury sustained at the prior institution may lead to a remedy 

other than mere abatement of the prison conditions themselves. 
-11-

compliance issue and the dismissal on that basis. Rather, we limit our consideration to whether 

the dismissal 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.

We find support for this conclusion in Doe v Dep’t of Corrections, 312 Mich App 97; 878 

NW2d 293 (2015), vacated in part on other grounds 499 Mich 886; 876 NW2d 570 (2016). In 

Doe, 312 Mich App at 112-114, the Court engaged in an extensive discussion regarding whether 

a plaintiff who failed to comply with the PLRA disclosure requirements should be afforded an 

opportunity to amend a complaint rather than having the complaint being dismissed:

Alternatively, plaintiffs contend that the proper remedy for noncompliance 

with the disclosure requirements is a remand to permit them to amend the 

complaint, rather than dismissal. We disagree.

Pursuant to MCL 600.5507(3)(b), “[t]he court shall dismiss a civil action or 

appeal at any time, regardless of any filing fee that may have been paid, if the court 

finds” that the “prisoner fails to comply with the disclosure requirements of 

Subsection (2).” Despite this clear directive, plaintiffs contend that they should 

have been permitted to amend their complaint. See MCR 2.118(A)(2) (“Except as 

provided in subrule (A)(1), a party may amend a pleading only by leave of the court 

or by written consent of the adverse party. Leave shall be freely given when justice 

so requires.”). Defendants, however, posit that Subsection (3) precludes 

amendment of the complaint because that provision states that the court shall 

dismiss a civil action if the prisoner fails to comply with Subsection (2) of the 

statute. 

The word “shall” is unambiguous and denotes “a mandatory, rather than 

discretionary action.” Roberts v Mecosta Co Gen Hosp, 466 Mich 57, 65; 642 

NW2d 663 (2002). Consistently with the plain language of the statute, in Tomzek

[v Dep’t of Corrections, 258 Mich App 222, 223; 672 NW2d 511 (2003)], we held 

“that the statutory language mandates dismissal of the appeal, without regard to 

how or when the issue was raised.” We also recognized that the failure to disclose 

the number of previous civil actions or appeals was fatal, even if that number was 

zero. Id. at 224–225. Likewise, in Komejan v Dep't of Corrections, 270 Mich App 

398, 399–400; 715 NW2d 375 (2006), we held as follows:

If a prisoner fails to disclose the number of previous suits, the 

statute explicitly instructs the court to dismiss the action. MCL 

600.5507(3)(b). Plaintiff did not disclose the number of civil actions 

relating to prison conditions that he had previously pursued, so the trial 

court should have dismissed this suit. The fact that plaintiff had never 

pursued a civil action before does not excuse his lack of disclosure 

because a prisoner is obligated to disclose the number of civil actions 

and appeals he had previously initiated, even when that number is zero. 

Plaintiff's failure to disclose the number of previous civil actions he 
-12-

commenced mandates the dismissal of this case. [Quotation marks, 

ellipsis, and citation omitted.]

Relying on federal caselaw, plaintiffs claim they should be given the 

opportunity to amend the complaint. However, the federal decisions it cites are not 

binding on this Court. State Treasurer v Sprague, 284 Mich App 235, 241; 772 

NW2d 452 (2009). Plaintiffs also cite MCL 600.2301, which provides:

The court in which any action or proceeding is pending, has power to 

amend any process, pleading or proceeding in such action or 

proceeding, either in form or substance, for the furtherance of justice, 

on such terms as are just, at any time before judgment rendered therein. 

The court at every stage of the action or proceeding shall disregard any 

error or defect in the proceedings which do not affect the substantial 

rights of the parties.

The applicability of MCL 600.2301 rests on a two-pronged test: (1) whether 

a substantial right of a party is implicated, and (2) whether a cure is in furtherance 

of justice. Bush [v Shabahang, 484 Mich 167, 177; 772 NW2d 272 (2009)]. 

Plaintiffs make no argument regarding either prong of this test. Ypsilanti Charter 

Twp v Kircher, 281 Mich App 251, 287; 761 NW2d 761 (2008) (stating that a 

party's failure to properly address the merits of an assertion of error constitutes an 

abandonment of the issue on appeal).

Furthermore, plaintiffs' contention is contrary to a cardinal rule of statutory 

interpretation: “If the language employed by the Legislature is unambiguous, the 

Legislature is presumed to have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and this 

Court must enforce the statute as written.” Ameritech Pub, Inc. v Dep't of Treasury, 

281 Mich App 132, 136; 761 NW2d 470 (2008). The language of MCL 

600.5507(3) is unambiguous. Consistent with our prior, published caselaw, we 

apply the statute as written and hold that dismissal is mandated.

Because a plaintiff would be precluded by statute from going forward with 

this lawsuit, ordinarily we would need not address plaintiffs' additional claims. But, 

because it is not clear whether any of the John Doe plaintiffs would be free, 

individually, in the future to bring the claims they now allege under the ELCRA 

and Equal Protection Clauses, we will consider them here. Further, the Michigan 

Supreme Court specifically remanded this case for consideration of the issues raised 

on leave granted. Doe [v Dep’t of Corrections, 497 Mich 881, 882; 854 NW2d 718

(2014)].

If a party may not amend their complaint because dismissal is mandatory, then it follows that that 

dismissal must be with prejudice. Moreover, in JUDGE BECKERING’S partial dissent, she 

acknowledged that precedent required a dismissal, although she would make the dismissal without 

prejudice:
-13-

Finally, because I am bound by precedent, I must concur with the majority's ruling 

with respect to plaintiffs' failure to comply with the disclosure requirements of the 

prison litigation reform act (PLRA), specifically MCL 600.5507(2), although 

dismissal would be without prejudice. Were I not bound by precedent, I would 

allow plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in compliance with MCL 

600.5507(2). [312 Mich App at 139 (BECKERING, J., concurring in part and 

dissenting in part).]

We note that the Supreme Court’s order in Doe v Dep’t of Corrections, 499 Mich 886; 876 NW2d 

570 (2016), only vacated that part of this Court’s opinion that discussed the constitutional issue 

because the decision that dismissal was required under the PLRA rendered it unnecessary to 

resolve the remaining issues. 

For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting dismissal with 

prejudice.

ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT CLAIMS AND THE PLRA 

Next, we briefly turn to plaintiffs’ argument that the PLRA cannot constitutionally be 

applied to claims under the ELCRA. Plaintiffs only present a short, not fully developed argument 

on this point. Plaintiffs’ reliance on Does 11-18 is misplaced. Does 11-18 did not hold that the 

PLRA could not constitutionally be applied to claims under the ELCRA. Rather, Does 11-18, 323 

Mich App at 484-490, held that the provision of the ELCRA that excluded prisoners from bringing 

a claim under the ELCRA was unconstitutional. Plaintiffs are not precluded from bringing a claim 

under the ELCRA because of their status as prisoners. As prisoners, however, they must comply 

with the requirements of the PLRA. 

CLASS CERTIFICATION 

Finally, we turn to the question of class certification. Because plaintiffs failed to satisfy 

the requirements of commonality, typicality, and superiority, the trial court properly denied 

plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

In cases involving the certification of a class action, this Court reviews the proper 

application of MCR 3.501 de novo. Challenges to the trial court’s factual findings are reviewed 

for clear error, and challenges to the trial court’s exercise of discretion are reviewed for abuse of 

discretion. Henry v Dow Chem Co, 484 Mich 483, 495; 772 NW2d 301 (2009). Clear error is 

found if, after reviewing the entire record, this Court is “definitely and firmly convinced that the 

trial court made a mistake.” Duskin v Dep’t of Human Servs, 304 Mich App 645, 651; 848 NW2d 

455 (2014).

MCR 3.501 governs class actions. To initiate a class action, “[w]ithin 91 days after the 

filing of a complaint that includes class action allegations, the plaintiff must move for certification 

that the action may be maintained as a class action.” MCR 3.501(B)(1). Pursuant to MCR 

3.501(A)(1), a class action may be certified only if:

(a) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
-14-

(b) there are questions of law or fact common to the members of the class 

that predominate over questions affecting only individual members;

(c) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the 

claims or defenses of the class;

(d) the representative parties will fairly and adequately assert and protect 

the interests of the class; and

(e) the maintenance of the action as a class action will be superior to other 

available methods of adjudication in promoting the convenient administration of 

justice.

These requirements are generally referred to as numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, 

and superiority. Henry, 484 Mich at 488.

In this case, the trial court found that plaintiffs satisfied the numerosity requirement on the 

strength of “approximately 615 declarations from former inmates of the Wayne County Jail all of 

whom have attested to the same discriminatory conduct.” The court also found that plaintiffs 

satisfied the adequacy requirement because counsel was qualified to pursue the action and the class 

representatives would be members of the class.

But the court found that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the commonality requirement because 

the declarations demonstrated different experiences with verbal conduct and communications of a 

sexual or racially discriminatory nature. The court also found that plaintiffs failed the typicality 

requirement for a similar reason: “None of the allegations are typical. Each plaintiff’s experience 

was different.” Finally, the court found that plaintiffs failed to show superiority because the 

different experiences of plaintiffs created disparate issues of law and fact and a class action was 

unmanageable. Thus, the trial court denied the motion for class certification. We will address 

these three requirements. 

Commonality. A party seeking class certification must show that issues of law and fact 

common to the class predominate over issues that must be proven individually. Duskin, 304 Mich 

App at 654. In Duskin, this Court ruled that a trial court erred by concluding that the plaintiffs had 

established commonality, explaining that the plaintiffs’ claims “include an inextricable mix of 

racial discrimination, ethnic discrimination, and gender discrimination claims against not only the 

Department as a whole, but against individual supervisors and managers as well.” Id. at 655. 

Noting that there was no allegation of a single type of discrimination, or that a single actor engaged 

in that discrimination, this Court was “definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court made a 

mistake when it found that the minority males raised common questions of law or fact,” and 

concluded that the trial clearly erred by finding that the plaintiffs had established commonality. 

Id. at 656.

It is not enough to show that all members of the class experienced some type of sexual 

harassment or racially discriminatory language during strip searches. Commonality requires a 

common injury demonstrated with generalized proof, rather than evidence of individual injuries. 

Tinman v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich, 264 Mich App 546, 563-564; 692 NW2d 58 (2004). 

In this case, plaintiffs contend that the “common issue of law and fact that could be adjudicated on 
-15-

a class-wide basis is whether defendants maintained, and failed to remedy, a sexually hostile jail 

environment which led to the claims of harassment.” But as the trial court noted, the declarations 

filed by plaintiffs described differing experiences, and establishing that sexually hostile 

environment would necessarily require proving the individual acts comprising that hostile 

environment. The trial court did not clearly err by finding that plaintiffs failed to establish 

commonality.

Typicality. A party seeking class certification must establish that the claims of the named 

representatives have the same essential characteristics and share a common core of allegations 

with those of the class as a whole. Duskin, 304 Mich App at 656-657. In Duskin, this Court 

concluded that the trial court clearly erred by finding that the named plaintiffs established 

typicality because the record did not show that “the named representatives have the same essential 

characteristics regarding all the claims concerning all the different types and methods of 

discrimination by the various actors that the class definition and the minority males’ allegations 

encompass.” Id. at 657.

In this case, the claims of the named plaintiffs are not even typical of the other named 

plaintiffs, let alone of the class as a whole. Plaintiff Hogan alleged that during several strip 

searches she was subjected to searches in the presence of male officers and told she was a “b****” 

and had a “fat p***y.” In addition, she was forced to remove a tampon during another strip search. 

Other plaintiffs alleged similar treatment. Plaintiff Miller did not allege a strip search at all, but 

was observed by male deputies at Hutzel Hospital during labor, after giving birth, and while 

breastfeeding her child. Plaintiff Thomas alleged that she was denied a sanitary napkin during a 

strip search, was told to “hurry your flat ass up,” and was forced to disrobe for linen exchanges in 

the presence of male officers and other inmates.

Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred by focusing on the differences between the 

various claims, rather than recognizing that the named plaintiffs and the class members are each 

asserting that they were subjected to unwelcome sexual conduct and sexually inappropriate 

communication. The incidents described in the plaintiffs’ declarations differed widely. One 

described a group strip search in which the inmate was forced to do “humiliating things.” Another 

described being searched and patted down by male officers when leaving for and returning from 

health care and trial. While the hundreds of declarations submitted largely contain the same 

general allegations of strip searches and communications of a sexual nature, the differences are 

sufficient to defeat plaintiffs’ assertion of typicality. The trial court correctly concluded that none 

of the allegations was typical, each plaintiffs experience was different, and plaintiffs failed to show 

typicality.

Superiority. The superiority requirement is related to the commonality requirement 

because a class action will be unmanageable if individual questions of fact predominate over 

common questions. Duskin, 304 Mich App at 658. In Duskin, this Court concluded that because

the trial court had erred by finding that the named plaintiffs established commonality, it also erred 

by finding that the named plaintiffs had established superiority: “Individual questions of law and 

fact will predominate over any common questions, making this case unmanageable as a class 

action.” Id. a 659.
-16-

In this case, the trial court, relying on Duskin, correctly found that the disparate issues of 

law and fact render a class action unmanageable. Plaintiffs contend that the common question of 

law and fact is whether defendants maintained a sexually hostile jail environment. But in order to 

establish this sexually hostile environment, plaintiffs must necessarily prove the individual 

allegations asserted in the complaint and the declarations plaintiffs submitted.

Defendants also contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs’ challenge 

to the trial court’s decision on superiority because plaintiffs failed to raise superiority in their 

application for leave to appeal. Plaintiffs respond that the trial court’s decision on superiority was 

premised on its findings regarding commonality and typicality, which they did contest.

Defendants are correct that plaintiffs failed to properly raise this issue in this Court. In the 

statement of questions presented in their application for leave to appeal, plaintiffs challenged only 

the trial court’s findings on typicality and commonality; the word “superiority” appears only once, 

in a description of the requirements for class certification. This Court’s order granting leave to 

appeal limited the appeal to the issues raised in the application and supporting brief. Hogan v 

Wayne County, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered January 12, 2023 (Docket No. 

362259). An issue not included in the statement of questions presented is waived. Seifeddine, 327 

Mich App at 521. But given that this issue is intricately connected with the issue of commonality, 

this Court may address this issue. As in Duskin, because the trial court did not clearly err by 

finding that plaintiffs had failed to prove commonality, the trial court did not err by finding that 

plaintiffs failed to prove superiority.

For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying class certification.4 

CONCLUSION 

For the above reasons, we conclude that the trial court erred in determining that those 

plaintiffs who were on probation or parole, and not physically incarcerated at the time this lawsuit 

was filed, were “prisoners.” Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing those plaintiffs from this 

case for failure to comply with the requirements of the PLRA. As for those plaintiffs who were 

incarcerated, including those incarcerated elsewhere than the Wayne County Jail, the trial court 

correctly determined that those plaintiffs were “prisoners” and were obligated to comply with the 

PLRA. Plaintiffs do not challenge the trial court’s determination of noncompliance and we 

conclude that 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.

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of class certification and the dismissal with prejudice as 

to those plaintiffs who were “prisoners” at the time of the filing of this lawsuit as set forth in this 

opinion. We reverse the dismissal of the claims by those plaintiffs who were not “prisoners” as 

 

4 We do note that it is conceivably possible for plaintiffs to establish subclasses and achieve class 

certification through that route. While we express no opinion on whether that is possible in this 

case, our decision is without prejudice to plaintiffs pursuing this route if they so choose. 
-17-

set forth in this opinion and the matter is remanded to the trial court for reinstatement of those 

claims. 

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with 

this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction. No costs. 

/s/ Kathleen A. Feeney

/s/ James Robert Redford

/s/ Christopher P. Yates