|
|
| Wis. Supreme Court Rules Against Inmate |
| By Milwaukee Journal Sentinel staff |
| Published: 07/23/2001 |
|
State inmates with constitutional complaints must first take them through the prison bureaucracy before launching a court challenge, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled recently. In a 5-2 decision, justices reversed an appeals court ruling that allowed inmate Spriggie Hensley to take his complaints directly to court and bypass a prison review process. Hensley complained that two rules - one prohibiting prisoners from receiving or possessing pornography and another barring them from receiving or possessing cassette tapes and tape players - were unconstitutional. Justice Jon Wilcox, writing for the majority, said the state's Prison Litigation Reform Act 'requires Hensley to exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing an action in circuit court.' The appeals court had ruled that the rules were unconstitutional and that the administrative review process was not the proper arena to raise constitutional challenges. Hensley, who is serving two life sentences plus 20 years at the Columbia Correctional Institution after being convicted on two counts of homicide and one count of armed robbery, claimed that only the court could decide constitutional issues. Wilcox, however, said the courts are still available to inmates to press their cases, but only after going through the prison review process. 'Hensley would disrupt the sweeping simplicity of the (review process) in order to get into circuit court sooner,' Wilcox said. The Department of Corrections argued that if Hensley was successful, it would create a huge loophole in the process and encourage other inmates to incorporate constitutional issues in their complaints so they could bypass the review process. Wilcox agreed that upholding Hensley's claim would undercut the entire review process put in place by the Legislature in 1998. 'Hensley would subvert the Legislature's intent and dramatically increase the number of prospective litigants as well as associated costs, which we have previously noted the (review process) was intended to reduce,' Wilcox wrote. Wilcox said that Hensley's claim rests on the assumption that he could not prevail in a prison review. 'But Hensley cannot know, anymore than we can know, how the administrative process can turn out,' Wilcox said. Hensley also argued that the review process is trumped by a state statute that allows court challenges to administrative rules. The court also dismissed that claim. In a dissent joined by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley claimed the state statute should have been given more weight in the majority's opinion. Bradley maintained that as a result of the decision, prisoners seeking to challenge a prison rule on its face would have only two weeks after the rule is enacted to mount a challenge. She said that would require that prisoners be given notice of new rules with 'lightning speed,' something that is 'often inconsistent with the realities of prison administration.' |
advertise
|
privacy policy
|
add URL
|
about us
|
terms/disclaimer
|
contact us
|
join our team
|
help
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think