Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

10-1829 Miller v. Dobier

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 11, 2011//

10-1829 Miller v. Dobier

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 11, 2011//

Listen to this article

Constitutional Law
Due process; prisons

Persons civilly committed as sexually violent persons are entitled to due process before being disciplined, but disciplinary measures that do not substantially worsen the conditions of confinement of a lawfully confined person are not actionable.

“Language in a few cases could be read to suggest that a pretrial detainee or a civil detainee does not have the same rights as prison inmates unless the challenged restriction imposed on him is intended as punishment. See Rapier v. Harris, 172 F.3d 999, 1005-06 (7th Cir. 1999); Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465, 483 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); Fuentes v. Wagner, 206 F.3d 335, 342 (3d Cir. 2000). But such a reading cannot be correct if it means that a person detained without having been convicted of a crime can be treated worse than a convicted criminal. What is true is that civil detainees who are more disruptive than prison inmates can be subjected to greater restrictions without those restrictions constituting punishment. But such detainees still have the same right as criminals to complain of a deprivation of liberty without due process of law if the restrictions constitute a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court (with reference we think to all types of detainee) in Sandin. The meaning or scope of ‘liberty’ and ‘property’ in the due process clause is not a function of motive—a motive to punish rather than a motive to prevent disorder or other harm that might be caused by someone who could not be punished because he had a sound defense of mental incapacity. Without a deprivation of liberty or property (or life, but that is irrelevant to this case) there is no constitutional duty to provide due process; but if there is such a deprivation the duty attaches regardless of the motive for the deprivation. Wallace v. Robinson, 940 F.2d 243, 247-48 (7th Cir. 1991) (en banc).”

Affirmed.

10-1829 Miller v. Dobier

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Baker, J., Posner, J.

Full Text

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests