01-3162 State ex rel. Freeman v. Berge

Listen to this article

“[W]e are satisfied that Freeman is not appealing the decision of the Whiteville disciplinary officer that he is guilty of certain offenses. Rather, he is appealing the decision to transfer him to SMCI and the decision to place him in administrative confinement at SMCI.

“From the petition, it appears that the decision to transfer him to SMCI was made by a program review committee (PRC) on December 9, 1999; the decision to place him in administrative confinement at SMCI was made by the ACRC at SMCI. True, the decision of the Whiteville hearing officer is related to the decisions Freeman challenges, in that he alleges that the reason for his transfer to SMCI and for placement there in administrative confinement is the decision of the Whiteville hearing officer; and he further alleges that the procedural deficiencies in that hearing preclude reliance on that decision in the transfer and placement decisions. However, the decisions, though related according to the petition, are each made by different personnel according to different standards. …

“We are satisfied that neither the regulations nor the notices Freeman received required him to wait longer than October 1, 2001, before filing a petition for review by certiorari of the decision to place him in administrative confinement. Therefore, we conclude Freeman exhausted the available administrative remedies with respect to the ACRC’s [Administrative Confinement Review Committee’s] decision to place him in administrative confinement at SMCI….

“In summary, we conclude that Freeman has exhausted the available administrative remedies for review of the ACRC decision placing him in administrative confinement at SMCI. Therefore, we reverse the circuit court order dismissing his petition insofar as it seeks review of that decision. We also conclude that he has failed to exhaust available administrative remedies with respect to any procedural challenges to the December 9, 1999 PRC decision transferring him to SMCI, and that the petition for certiorari review of the substantive basis of that decision is untimely. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court order dismissing his petition insofar as it seeks review of that PRC decision.”

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Dane County, Albert, J., Vergeront, P.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Berrell Freeman, Boscobel

For Respondent: Charles D. Hoornstra, Madison; Brian W. Blanchard, Madison