Court Opinion

ID: 9381896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 05:04:51.600656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:35.318802
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                 revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

In re GRUMBLEY.

FREDERICK HARVEY GRUMBLEY,                                           UNPUBLISHED
                                                                     March 23, 2023
               Plaintiff-Appellant,

v                                                                    No. 360508
                                                                     Saginaw Circuit Court
70TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE,                                           LC No. 21-045995-02-AS

               Defendant-Appellee.

Before: GLEICHER, C.J., and O’BRIEN and MALDONADO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

       Plaintiff Frederick Harvey Grumbley filed this action in the circuit court seeking writs of
habeas corpus and superintending control. The circuit court denied both. Grumbley appeals only
the superintending control ruling, which we affirm.

       In 2004, Grumbley was convicted of several charges including extortion, MCL 750.213,
and is currently incarcerated. He appealed his convictions, and this Court affirmed. People v
Grumbley, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued December 21, 2006
(Docket No. 261275) (Grumbley I). The Supreme Court denied his application for leave to appeal.
People v Grumbley, 480 Mich 854; 737 NW2d 726 (2007).

         Grumbley’s motion for superintending control asserts that he was improperly bound over
for trial on the extortion charge because the information identified the victim of the extortion as a
friend of his, and the evidence adduced at the preliminary examination supported only that he had
extorted his 13-year-old half-sister and not his friend. He also challenges the amendment of the
criminal complaint adding several charges.

        “Superintending control is an extraordinary power that the court may invoke only when
the plaintiff has no legal remedy and demonstrates that the court has failed to perform a clear legal
duty.” Shepherd Montessori Ctr Milan v Ann Arbor Charter Twp, 259 Mich App 315, 347; 675

                                                -1-
NW2d 271 (2003). The Supreme Court continued, “[I]f a plaintiff has a legal remedy by way of
appeal, the court may not exercise superintending control and must dismiss the complaint.” Id.
See also Pub Health Dep’t v Rivergate Manor, 452 Mich 495, 500; 550 NW2d 515 (1996) (“An
order of superintending control will not be granted when the party seeking the order is entitled to
pursue an appeal.”). A writ of superintending control is not a substitute for an appeal. People v
Burton, 429 Mich 133, 141; 413 NW2d 413 (1987).

        Grumbley raised or could have raised his current claims on appeal. He may not litigate
these grievances in an action for superintending control.

       We affirm.

                                                            /s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
                                                            /s/ Colleen A. O’Brien
                                                            /s/ Allie Greenleaf Maldonado

                                               -2-