Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 600 / Act 236 of 1961
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4310 (2026)

Habeas corpus; persons not entitled to writ.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961


Act 236 of 1961


600.4310 Habeas corpus; persons not entitled to writ.

Sec. 4310.

    An action for habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of detention may not be brought by or on behalf of the following persons:

    (1) Persons detained by virtue of any process issued by any court of the United States, or any judge thereof, in cases where such courts or judges have exclusive jurisdiction under the laws of the United States, or have acquired exclusive jurisdiction by the commencement of suits in such courts;

    (2) Persons committed for treason or felony, or for suspicion thereof, or as accessories before the fact to a felony, where the cause is plainly and specially expressed in the warrant of commitment;

    (3) Persons convicted, or in execution, upon legal process, civil or criminal;

    (4) Persons committed on original process in any civil action on which they were liable to be arrested and imprisoned, unless excessive and unreasonable bail is required.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Witzke v. Withrow, 702 F. Supp. 1338 (W.D. Mich. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Witzke v. Withrow, 702 F. Supp. 1338 (W.D. Mich. 1988). · cites it 10× “The letter relied on Mich.Comp. Laws § 600.4310, which provides that a habeas corpus complaint to inquire into the cause of detention may not be filed on behalf of a prisoner serving a sentence under a criminal conviction.”
Moses v. Dep't of Corr., 736 N.W.2d 269 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “The DOC’s reliance on MCL 600.4310 is misplaced because that statute does not identify the proper defendant, but rather identifies persons who may not bring an action for a writ of habeas corpus.”
Caley v. Hudson, 759 F. Supp. 378 (E.D. Mich. 1991). · cites it 9× “Specifically, petitioner has not shown that he sought redress of his claim via a state habeas corpus proceeding. 1 Rather, petitioner argues that a state habeas corpus proceeding was not available to him as an avenue to challenge the revocation of his parole.”
Cross v. Dep't of Corr., 303 N.W.2d 218 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “4307, an action for habeas corpus "to inquire into the cause of detention may be brought by or on the behalf of any person restrained of his liberty within this state under any pretense whatsoever, except as specified in § 4310 [MCL 600.4310; MSA 27A.4310]". In relevant part, §…”
Walls v. Dir. of Institutional Servs., 269 N.W.2d 599 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “MCL 600.4310(3); MSA 27A.4310(3). If there is a radical jurisdictional defect in the proceedings, however, the statutory prohibition does not bar a habeas corpus action.”
Berry v. Mintzes, 529 F. Supp. 1067 (E.D. Mich. 1981). “Petitioner then re-filed the complaint. Wayne County Prosecutor filed response on April 6.”
Solomon v. Yokom (E.D. Mich. 2020). · cites it 4× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4310 (3) states that a habeas action may not be brought by or on behalf of “[p]ersons convicted, or in execution, upon legal process, civil or criminal.”
20221215_C361179_29_361179.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “MCL 600.4310 provides: An action for habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of detention may not be brought by or on behalf of the following persons: * * * (3) Persons convicted, or in execution, upon legal process, civil or criminal[.”
James Hornsby v. Dep't of Corr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “The order stated that under MCL 600.4310, an action for habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of detention may not be brought by persons convicted upon legal process by a court of competent jurisdiction, and there must be a radical jurisdictional defect in the sentencing…”
Burgess (W.D. Mich. 2025). · cites it 2× “In general, MCL 600.4310(3) prohibits habeas corpus relief to “[p]ersons convicted, or in execution, upon legal process, civil or criminal.”
People of Michigan v. Jerrel Files (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Defendant’s reliance on MCL 600.4310 is misplaced, as the matter before us involves a direct appeal from defendant’s convictions, not an action for habeas relief.”
Jerry Anderson II v. Marquette Branch Prison Warden (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “MCL 600.4310(3). Thus, to warrant the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, petitioner had to establish a radical defect in the jurisdiction of the court in which his convictions were obtained.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4310(3) — 9 cases
Moses v. Dep't of Corr., 736 N.W.2d 269 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “The DOC’s reliance on MCL 600.4310 is misplaced because that statute does not identify the proper defendant, but rather identifies persons who may not bring an action for a writ of habeas corpus.”
Walls v. Dir. of Institutional Servs., 269 N.W.2d 599 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “MCL 600.4310(3); MSA 27A.4310(3). If there is a radical jurisdictional defect in the proceedings, however, the statutory prohibition does not bar a habeas corpus action.”
Burgess (W.D. Mich. 2025). “In general, MCL 600.4310(3) prohibits habeas corpus relief to “[p]ersons convicted, or in execution, upon legal process, civil or criminal.”
Jerry Anderson II v. Marquette Branch Prison Warden (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “MCL 600.4310(3). Thus, to warrant the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, petitioner had to establish a radical defect in the jurisdiction of the court in which his convictions were obtained.”
Terrence Terrell Moore v. Lakeland Corr. Facility Warden (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.