Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180313_0000325.WMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:52:27+00:00

Document:
LARRY S. ROYSTER et al., Defendants.
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must read Plaintiff's pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these standards, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants Royster and Meyer for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at Chippewa Correctional Facility (URF) in Kincheloe, Chippewa County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues Michigan Supreme Court Chief Clerk Larry S. Royster and Deputy Clerk Inger Z. Meyer. Plaintiff alleges that following the denial of his motion for reconsideration in the Michigan Court of Appeals on August 5, 2016, he had 42 days to file an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court.
On September 9, 2016, Plaintiff mailed an application for leave to appeal and a motion to suspend filing fees, as well as supporting documents, to the Michigan Supreme Court. On September 13, 2016, Defendant Royster received Plaintiff's submission and returned it to Plaintiff on the same date, stating that pursuant to MCL § 600.2963(8), the court would not accept further civil appeals on Plaintiff's behalf until the filing fees in Plaintiff's previous civil appeals were paid in full. After Plaintiff received this mail, he had his brother pay his outstanding debt to the state court. Plaintiff states that pursuant to MCL § 600.2963(1), he had 21 days in which to refile his pleadings. However, when Plaintiff mailed his pleadings back to the Michigan Supreme Court for filing, Defendant Meyer refused to accept his pleadings. On October 3, 2016, Defendant Meyer returned Plaintiff's pleadings with a letter stating that Plaintiff had missed the 42 day filing deadline set forth in Rule 7.305(C) of the Michigan Court Rules. Plaintiff was also informed that the mailbox rule only applies to criminal matters and that the court did not have any discretion to accept a late filing.
As explained by Deputy Clerk Meyer in her letter to you on October 3, 2016, your civil application for leave to appeal, which this office received on September 16, 2016, could not be accepted and docketed because you had an outstanding balance for the filing fees in [Michigan Supreme Court] No. 140213, Charles Smiles v Dep't of Corrections. Although you paid that balance on September 29, 2106, and re-submitted the civil application on October 3, 2016, the 42-day deadline for filing the application had passed. It was therefore properly rejected and returned to you by this office.
See ECF No. 1, PageID.5. Defendant Royster reiterated that the filing deadline for an application for leave to appeal is jurisdictional and cannot be extended.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments when they refused to accept his application for leave to appeal. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

References: § 1983
 § 1997
 v. 
 v. 
 § 600
 § 600