Case Name: SEATON v. WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR (ON REMAND)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1997-08-01
Citations: 225 Mich. App. 1
Docket Number: Docket No. 191685
Parties: SEATON v WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR (ON REMAND)
Judges: Before: Taylor, P.J., and Griffin and Saad, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 225
Pages: 1–13

Head Matter:
SEATON v WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR (ON REMAND)
Docket No. 191685.
Submitted June 4, 1997, at Detroit.
Decided August 1, 1997, at 9:00 A.M.
Leave to appeal sought.
Parnell Seaton, a state prison inmate, brought an action under the Freedom of Information Act (foia), MCL 15.231 et seq:, MSA 4.1801(1) et seq., seeking to compel the Wayne County Prosecutor to comply with foia requests the plaintiff made between 1989 and 1993 for documents relating to his prosecution and conviction. While the action was pending, the Legislature enacted 1994 PA 131 to prohibit inmates from making foia requests. The court, Sharon Tevis Finch, J., granted summary disposition for the prosecutor, determining that 1994 PA 131 applies to the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave, remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. 450 Mich 969 (1996).
On remand, the Court of Appeals held:
As decided in Jones v Wayne Co Prosecutor, 165 Mich App 62 (1987), MCR 6.101(L), now MCR 6.433(A), governs exclusively when a person seeks records related to the person’s criminal conviction such that the foia cannot apply. Jones is unaffected by Central Michigan Univ Supervisory-Technical Ass’n MEA/NEA v Central Michigan TJniv Bd of Trustees, 223 Mich App 727 (1997), notwithstanding footnote 2 of Central Michigan, p 729, by which the Court of Appeals panel in that case purported to overrule Jones to the extent Jones conflicted with the holding in Central Michigan that court rules governing discovery do not override the foia when the person seeking disclosure of records under the foia and the public body from whom disclosure is sought are involved in litigation against each other, because Central Michigan did not involve a convicted criminal’s attempt to gain records of his own criminal trial and because footnote 2 is dicta inasmuch as had the Court of Appeals intended to overrule Jones, it would have done so in the text of the Central Michigan opinion, not in a footnote.
Affirmed.
Taylor, P.J., dissenting, stated that the majority in this case neglected to address the only issue that was briefed by the parties, i.e., whether 1994 PA 131 retroactively applies to the plaintiff. Central Michigan overruled Jones, and Jones was wrongly decided and should not be followed inasmuch as there is no authority in support of the proposition advanced by Jones that the foia, which applies to the executive and legislative branches, but not the judicial branch, of government, can be overridden by a court rule that applies only to the judicial branch.
Records — Freedom of Information Act — Prisoners — Records Related to Criminal Convictions — Court Rules.
The Freedom of Information Act does not apply to a prisoner’s request for records related to the prisoner’s criminal conviction, which is governed exclusively by MCR 6.101(L), now MCR 6.433(A) (MCL 15.231 et seq.; MSA 4.1801[1] et seq.).
Parnell Seaton, in propria persona.
John D. O’Hair, Prosecuting Attorney, and Frank J. Bemacki, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the defendant.
ON REMAND
Before: Taylor, P.J., and Griffin and Saad, JJ.

Opinion:
Griffin, J.
This case is before us on remand by the Supreme Court for consideration as on leave granted the circuit court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint brought under the Freedom of Information Act (foia), MCL 15.231 et seq.; MSA 4.1801(1) et seq. 450 Mich 969 (1996). We affirm.
Between 1989 and 1993, plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding in propria persona, sent to defendant several FOIA requests seeking documents, including trial transcripts, relating to plaintiff's criminal trial. Defendant denied plaintiff's FOIA requests for a variety of reasons, which included that plaintiff should obtain the trial transcripts and court records through his court-appointed appellate counsel, who had already received the records. Following defendant's refusal to comply with the foia requests, plaintiff brought this action seeking to compel production of the requested records plus $500 in statutory damages.
Defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). The trial court granted defendant's motion on the basis that the FOIA had been amended by 1994 PA 131 to preclude prison inmates from making FOIA requests.
On appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of defendant. We disagree. In Jones v Wayne Co Prosecutor, 165 Mich App 62, 65; 418 NW2d 667 (1987), this Court held that the foia does not apply to a prisoner's request for records of his own criminal trial. Recently, in Central Michigan Univ Supervisory-Technical Ass'n, MEA/NEA v Central Michigan Univ Bd of Trustees, 223 Mich App 727, 729; 567 NW2d 696 (1997), this Court, in a footnote, purported to overrule Jones to the extent that the holdings of the two cases conflicted. However, the issue in Central Michigan was whether the plaintiff lost its general foia rights by filing a civil lawsuit. The case did not involve a convicted criminal's attempt to gain records of his own criminal trial. Therefore, Central Michigan did not address the present issue and could not overrule the holding in Jones establishing that MCR 6.101(L), now MCR 6.433(A), "govem[s] exclusively when, as in the present case, a person seeks records related to his or her criminal conviction." Jones, supra at 65.
Furthermore, the footnote in Central Michigan is dicta. We believe that had the Central Michigan panel intended to overrule Jones with regard to this issue, it would have done so in the text of the opinion rather than in a footnote. Guerra v Garratt, 222 Mich App 285, 292; 564 NW2d 121 (1997).
Consequently, in accordance with Jones, we hold that summary disposition in defendant's favor was the correct result. See Porter v Royal Oak, 214 Mich App 478, 488; 542 NW2d 905 (1995); People v Lucas, 188 Mich App 554, 577; 470 NW2d 460 (1991); State Mut Ins Co v Russell, 185 Mich App 521, 528; 462 NW2d 785 (1990). In view of our disposition, we need not decide the other issues raised on appeal.
Affirmed
Saad, J., concurred.