Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Prisoner – Legal Loan Authorization

By: Derek Hawkins//September 23, 2020//

Prisoner – Legal Loan Authorization

By: Derek Hawkins//September 23, 2020//

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District IV

Case Name: State of Wisconsin ex rel. Michael D. Morris v. Jon E. Litscher

Case No.: 2019AP601

Officials: Blanchard, Kloppenburg, and Nashold, JJ.

Focus: Prisoner – Legal Loan Authorization

Michael Morris appeals an order that affirmed a decision by the secretary of the Department of Corrections on an inmate complaint. Morris submitted a complaint to the inmate complaint review system. It alleged that the institution’s business office denied his request for a legal loan in connection with two cases, and that the business office denied the request because it believed that the request was controlled by a department policy that caps legal loans at $50 for inmates who have not repaid prior legal loans. Morris argued that the policy is not enforceable because it should have been promulgated as an administrative rule. As relief Morris requested the additional $50 of legal loan authorization. The examiner recommended dismissal of the complaint.

The examiner found that the business office “explained the reason for denial” and the examiner recommended dismissal of Morris’s complaint because “the denial is supported by DAI policy.” Morris appealed to the corrections complaint examiner, who also recommended dismissal of the complaint. As explanation, the examiner wrote: “As noted[,] the denial is in accordance with policy.” Morris then appealed to the department secretary, who decided as follows: The attached Corrections Complaint Examiner’s recommendation to DISMISS this appeal is accepted as the decision of the Secretary. The complainant was denied a legal loan extension because he had only spent $16.37 of the $50 available to him this calendar year making his request premature. The complainant was advised to prioritize his spending to meet his litigation needs. For example, E-filing documents to the USWD court is free and a great way to save money rather than spending limited funds on postage.

Unlike the previous decision makers, the secretary did not expressly refer to the department policy that Morris argued was an unenforceable rule. Morris filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in circuit court. That court affirmed the secretary’s decision. On certiorari review, we review the decision of the agency, not the circuit court. See State ex rel. Greer v. Wiedenhoeft, 2014 WI 19, ¶34, 353 Wis. 2d 307, 845 N.W.2d 373. Here, the decision by the secretary relied on the idea that Morris’s request for the additional legal loan authorization was premature. The secretary may also have relied on the department policy referred to in the examiners’ earlier decisions, because the secretary stated that he was accepting the decision of the corrections complaint examiner. However, that is not entirely clear.

Morris argues on appeal that the $50 cap does not apply to him because: it is an unpromulgated rule; he does not have unpaid balances; he meets exceptions to the policy; and he is being treated differently under the policy than another inmate was. We resolve this appeal based on the prematurity issue, which is dispositive.

It appears that Morris may have chosen to send the court the account information for that date because that weekly statement included the date on which the secretary received Morris’s appeal, May 2, 2018. However, the date of the secretary’s review is not significant. The secretary was reviewing an inmate complaint filed to address a specific action by the business office. That action occurred in late March 2018, and the secretary determined that, as of that date, Morris’s loan request was premature. Whether it would have been premature at some later date was not an issue before the secretary, and is not before us now in this judicial review. Morris does not make any other argument to dispute the secretary’s decision that Morris’s loan request was premature. Therefore, because we conclude that Morris’s one argument against that basis for the decision is not well founded, we affirm.

Full Text


Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.

Polls

Should Wisconsin Supreme Court rules be amended so attorneys can't appeal license revocation after 5 years?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests