On August 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in Ingham County (30th) Circuit Court of Michigan against the Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections, Chair of the Michigan Parole Board, and the Governor of Michigan. The plaintiffs were prisoners in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) who were serving a parolable life sentence and a consecutive term-of-years sentence. They proposed a class of all parolable lifers in MDOC's custody who are serving consecutive term-of-years sentences.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, for years and without notice to anyone, had treated parolable lifers with consecutive sentences as if they were serving mandatory life. Previously, pursuant to MCL 791.234(3), a person serving a parolable life sentence who was convicted of another crime that carried a consecutive term-of-years sentence would be parole eligible after the parole eligibility date on the parolable life sentence plus the minimum term on the consecutive term-of-years sentence. For example, a person serving parolable life sentence for armed robbery and then got a consecutive 1-3 year sentence for possession of contraband in prison, that person would be eligible for parole at either 11 or 16 years (prisoners are eligible for parole after serving either 10 or 15 years of their parolable life sentence, depending on whether they committed their crime before or after a 1992 amendment to the lifer law + 1 year minimum term for the possession of contraband). Under the defendant's new interpretation of the statute, the same person would never be eligible for parole (defendants' rationale is that because a parolable life sentence has no legal "minimum term," the minimum is effectively "infinity" and therefore infinity + 1 = infinity).

The plaintiffs claimed that this new interpretation violated their due process rights under the Michigan Constitution and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, separation of powers under the Michigan Constitution, the ex post facto clause of the Michigan and U.S. Constitutions, and the Eight Amendment for juvenile lifers. They requested declaratory relief stating that the defendants' interpretation of the parole statutes violated the plaintiffs' rights, injunctive relief barring the defendants from using their new interpretation of the statute, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 30, 2012, the defendants filed a summary disposition motion. On February 1, 2013, Judge Joyce Draganchuk denied their motion. On July 22, 2013, the plaintiffs, after the parties had completed discovery, filed a motion for summary disposition and renewed their motion for class certification. The defendants filed a cross-motion for summary disposition. After a hearing on August 28, 2013, Judge Draganchuk granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary disposition and denied the defendant's cross-motion on September 15, 2013. Judge Draganchuck found that the defendants' interpretation of MCL 791.234(3) was mistaken and that the legislature intended that parolable lifers with consecutive sentences remain eligible for parole the same as term-of-years prisoners. Although she found the plaintiffs' constitutional claims persuasive, she chose not to reach those claims. She also granted the plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification, defining the class as all parolable lifers in MDOC's custody "who are also serving a consecutive sentence that the defendants claim forever deprives the parole board of jurisdiction to parole the prisoners."

On September 11, 2013, the Ingham County Circuit Court granted summary disposition to the plaintiffs, denied summary disposition to the state defendants, and certified a plaintiff class. The court held that members of the plaintiff class remained parole eligible even if they had a parolable life sentence followed by a consecutive sentence. Furthermore, the court found that the class members attained parole eligibility after having served the 10-20-year parole-eligibility period on their life sentence, plus the combined minimum (or parole-eligibility period) on any consecutive sentence.

On November 19, 2013, the case was transferred to the Court of Claims. On March 10, 2014, the Court of Claims entered an amended remedial order granting declaratory and injunctive relief. The remedial order required the board to review and interview those class members who have been parole eligible for the longest time and then go forward in descending order. Furthermore, if the board recommended a public hearing for any class member, the board's notice to the successor judge is required to include a copy of the remedial order, so that the judge would know that the candidate had been illegally classified as "commutable only" and thus was deprived of lawful parole review from the date of the consecutive sentence.

The state defendants agreed not to appeal, so the order granting summary disposition and the amended remedial order are final orders resolving this case. The case closed in April 2016 after the defendants submitted three status reports regarding compliance with the remedial order.