An order of superintending control enforces the supervisory power of a court over lower courts or tribunals. MCR 3.302(A).
“Superintending control is an extraordinary power that may be invoked when the plaintiff demonstrates the defendant’s failure to perform a clear legal duty and the absence of an adequate legal remedy.” In re Gosnell, 234 Mich App 326, 341 (1999).
Availability of an appeal or another remedy will defeat a writ of superintending control. MCR 3.302(B); MCR 3.302(D)(2). However, superintending control is not precluded if an appeal is available but not adequate. In re Hague, 412 Mich 532, 546 (1982).
If a party does not have standing to appeal, superintending control may be a proper remedy. Michigan State Police v 33rd Dist Court, 138 Mich App 390, 394 (1984).
An order of superintending control entered by a court with proper jurisdiction must be obeyed even if clearly incorrect. In re Hague, 412 Mich 532, 545 (1982).
MCL 600.2963(8), which requires a prisoner to pay outstanding fees and costs before commencing a new civil action or appeal, “cannot constitutionally be applied to bar a complaint for superintending control over an underlying criminal case if the bar is based on outstanding fees owed by an indigent-prisoner plaintiff from an earlier case and the prisoner-plaintiff lacks funds to pay those outstanding fees.” In re Jackson (Douglas) (On Remand), 326 Mich App 629, 631-632 (2018). When dealing with “criminal cases,” there is a “‘flat prohibition’ . . . against making access to ‘appellate processes’ turn on the ability to pay.” Id. at 635, citing MLB v SLJ, 519 US 102, 112 (1996). “[A] complaint for superintending control over an underlying criminal case must reasonably be recognized as an ‘appellate process,’ . . . even though it is an original civil action, and not formally an appeal[.]” Jackson (Douglas), 326 Mich App at 637 (although the claim for superintending control was “recognized as criminal in nature for purposes of the federal constitutional right of access to the courts,” the claim remained classified “as an original civil action subject to the fee-related requirements of MCL 600.2963 (apart from an unconstitutional application of MCL 600.2963(8))”).
Superintending control may not be used to permanently enjoin someone from holding a judicial office. In re Evan Callanan Sr, 419 Mich 376, 388 (1984).
Although a judge may be a nominal defendant in a case seeking an order of superintending control, the judge is not an aggrieved party, and thus has no standing to appeal an order of superintending control. Wayne Co Prosecutor v Recorder’s Court Judge, 66 Mich App 315, 316 (1975).
“The grant or denial of a petition for superintending control is within the sound discretion of the court.” In re Goehring, 184 Mich App 360, 366 (1990).