A writ of mandamus directs a public official to perform his or her legal duty. Jones v Dep’t of Corrections, 468 Mich 646, 658 (2003). A writ of mandamus cannot be sought to “control the exercise or direction of the discretion to be exercised,” or “for the purpose of reviewing, revising, or controlling the exercise of discretion reposed in administrative bodies.” Teasel v Dep’t of Mental Health, 419 Mich 390, 409-410 (1984).
“Unless the constitution, a statute, or court rule requires an action for mandamus against a state officer to be brought in the Supreme Court, the action must be brought in the Court of Appeals or the Court of Claims.”MCR 3.305(A)(1). “All other actions for mandamus must be brought in the circuit court unless a statute or rule requires or allows the action to be brought in another court.” MCR 3.305(A)(2).
“The general venue statutes and rules apply to actions for mandamus unless a specific statute or rule contains a special venue provision.” MCR 3.305(B)(1).1 “In addition to any other county in which venue is proper, an action for mandamus against a state officer may be brought in Ingham County.” MCR 3.305(B)(2).
“To obtain the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus, the plaintiff must show that (1) the plaintiff has a clear, legal right to performance of the specific duty sought, (2) the defendant has a clear legal duty to perform, (3) the act is ministerial, and (4) no other adequate legal or equitable remedy exists that might achieve the same result.” Citizens for Higgins Lake Legal Levels v Roscommon Co Bd of Comm’rs, 341 Mich App 161, 178-179 (2022) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The party seeking mandamus has the burden of proving all four requirements. See Rental Props Owners Ass’n of Kent Co v Kent Co Treasurer, 308 Mich App 498, 518 (2014). “Mandamus is an extraordinary writ and it will not lie to review or control the exercise of discretion vested in a public official or administrative body.” Citizens, 341 Mich App at 178 (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Barrow v Wayne Co Bd of Canvassers, 341 Mich App 473, 488 (2022) (“[M]andamus may lie to compel the exercise of discretion, but not to compel its exercise in a particular manner.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Clear Legal Right. “[A] clear legal right is one clearly founded in, or granted by, law; a right which is inferable as a matter of law from uncontroverted facts regardless of the difficulty of the legal question to be decided.” Rental Props Owners Ass’n of Kent Co, 308 Mich App at 519 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Even where such a right can be shown, it has long been the policy of the courts to deny the writ of mandamus to compel the performance of public duties by public officials unless the specific right involved is not possessed by citizens generally.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Clear Legal Duty. “A clear legal duty, like a clear legal right, is one that is inferable as a matter of law from uncontroverted facts regardless of the difficulty of the legal question to be decided.” Hayes v Parole Bd, 312 Mich App 774, 782 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted). See Braddock v Parole Bd, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2024) (“[P]laintiff ha[d] a right and defendant ha[d] a duty to provide a majority vote on whether to grant or deny plaintiff parole.”); see also Neilson v Bd of State Canvassers, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2024) (although the Board had a statutory “duty to investigate signatures or to check signatures against the qualified voter file,” it “did not have a clear legal duty to accept and review the last-second submissions by plaintiff” or “conduct a review of plaintiff’s choosing or one that adheres to the parameters she sets”).
Ministerial Acts. “An act is ministerial in nature if it is prescribed and defined by law with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment.” Carter v Ann Arbor City Attorney, 271 Mich App 425, 439 (2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted) (concluding the act of hiring an assistant city attorney was discretionary and thus, not ministerial). See also Braddock, ___ Mich App at ___ (“While the decision whether to grant parole is clearly discretionary, the act of voting is itself ministerial.”). Compare with Coalition for a Safer Detroit v Detroit City Clerk, 295 Mich App 362, 371 (2012), where it was determined that placing an initiative petition (that satisfied signature requirements) on the ballot was a ministerial act. Thus, the city clerk and election commission improperly exercised their discretion and judgment by considering the substance of the initiative when voting to exclude the initiative from the ballot. Id. See also Berdy v Buffa, 504 Mich 876, 879 (2019) (removing the names of properly challenged contestants from a ballot is a ministerial act); see also Neilson, ___ Mich App at ___ (“Because the Board has discretion as to how to conduct its review of petition signatures and as to the procedure that it will employ, the act that plaintiff seeks to compel in this case is not ministerial.”).
Other Adequate Remedy. “[The] plaintiff lack[ed] an adequate legal or equitable remedy that might achieve the same result as mandamus” where “[a]lthough a writ of quo warranto might have been an appropriate remedy . . . , before seeking such a writ, plaintiff would have been forced to seek ‘special leave of the court.’” Berry v Garrett, 316 Mich App 37, 45 (2016) (concluding that, “[g]iven the time constraints and procedural limitations, . . . quo warranto was [not] an adequate remedy to achieve the same result that plaintiff could achieve by utilizing mandamus”) (citation omitted). See also Braddock, ___ Mich App at ___ (holding that “plaintiff met this burden [of showing entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus] with respect to requiring a revote” because “plaintiff [was] entitled to have a parole decision made based upon a majority vote by the Parole Board” and “defendant ha[d] not shown what other remedy could be provided”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Mootness. “A writ of mandamus is unnecessary when the underlying issue becomes moot.” CB v Livingston Co Community Mental Health, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2023). “Mandamus is a remedy of extraordinary power, but narrowly defined usage.” Id. at ___. Accordingly, “a writ of mandamus will not be issued to compel the doing of a useless thing or if the question is moot and the granting of a writ of mandamus would serve no purpose.” Id. at ___ (cleaned up). In CB, ___ Mich App at ___, the Court of Appeals concluded that “issuing the writ would serve no purpose” because the defendant “eventually began providing at home respite care services during the pendency of [the] appeal”—“[i]n other words, there [was] nothing left to compel.” Because neither the Court of Appeals nor the trial court could “fashion a remedy related to the complaint for mandamus, the question of the propriety of the trial court’s denial of the writ [was] moot.” Id. at ___.
The decision to grant or deny a writ of mandamus is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Rental Props Owners Ass’n of Kent Co v Kent Co Treasurer, 308 Mich App 498, 518 (2014). However, the court reviews de novo the first two elements required for issuance of a writ of mandamus: that the official in question has a clear legal duty to perform and that the plaintiff has a clear legal right to performance of that duty. Id.
MCL 600.4431 “authoriz[es] money damages in mandamus actions,” and “[a]lthough damages under MCL 600.4431 are not conditioned on successfully obtaining the writ of mandamus, they are tethered to the merits of the underlying mandamus action.” CB v Livingston Co Community Mental Health, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2023). “In other words, to obtain damages under MCL 600.4431, a plaintiff must have a meritorious claim seeking a writ of mandamus in the first place—even if it is subsequently rendered moot.” CB, ___ Mich App at ___. “[I]t is immaterial to the question of damages that [defendant] eventually began providing services”—“[h]olding otherwise would allow defendants to evade damages solely by complying with their legal duties after a plaintiff filed suit, but before a trial court decides whether to issue the writ.” Id. at ___. In CB, “[t]he trial court’s decision on mandamus did not resolve the issue of damages for past noncompliance, or the noncompliance related to respite services that continued well into th[e] appeal”; “[t]he trial court therefore erred by failing to address [plaintiff’s] request for damages under MCL 600.4431.” CB, ___ Mich App at ___ (remanding “for the trial court to determine whether plaintiff is entitled to damages pursuant to MCL 600.4431 and the extent of those damages if any”).
1 See Section 2.14 for information on venue.