Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-0070 State ex rel. Adell v. Smith, Warden

By: dmc-admin//July 23, 2001//

00-0070 State ex rel. Adell v. Smith, Warden

By: dmc-admin//July 23, 2001//

Listen to this article

Accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for certiorari for failure to state a claim.

“At its core, Adell’s petition asserts that he has suffered injury due to allegedly erroneous negative comments documented in his inmate records in a manner inconsistent with DOC policy. In his petition, Adell refers to and provides a copy of the relevant institution policy. The policy directs that an inmate may be counseled if at any time he is not doing his job in an acceptable manner and that if he is counseled, a counseling notation regarding his unacceptable job performance should be placed on the inmate’s face/warning card. The policy does offer alternatives other than counseling in this situation, but the relevant point here is that if counseling is the chosen resolution, a notation should be made on the counseled inmate’s face/warning card. Adell provides proof that the method of resolution chosen by his supervisors was counseling. (In his petition, Adell includes a Nov. 1, 1999 letter to him from Warden Smith which confirms that Adell was counseled on Oct. 20, 1999, regarding his attitude and performance.) Adell claims that his face/warning card does not contain any negative performance notations. He claims, and we agree, that this lack of notation on his face/warning card, if true, is inconsistent with institution policy.”

Order reversed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist II, Winnebago County, Schmidt, J., Anderson, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Mark A. Adell, Oregon

For Respondent: Matthew J. Frank, Madison

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests