On Point: A. Certiorari

Artillis Mitchell v. Chris S. Buesgen & Kevin A. Carr, 2022AP1076, 2/22/24, District 4 (recommended for publication); case activity

This case concerns Mitchell’s appeal from the circuit court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of certiorari. We recognize the case is a bit outside of our normal coverage, but in addition to the fact that D4 has recommended this decision for publication, the case presents an interesting, if somewhat technical, application of law to a factual scenario that is likely of some interest to our readers. The bottom line is that the denial of Mitchell’s petition is affirmed, despite the fact that he indisputably filed proof that he fully exhausted all available administrative remedies, because he failed to file “all documents related to the administrative process.” Op., ¶33-34.

State ex rel. Michael J. Vieth v. John Tate II, 2018AP1525, District 4, 2/13/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Lawyers handling petitions for a writ of certiorari to review administrative decisions (or any other extraordinary writs, for that matter) should be aware of this decision. It holds that, under the electronic filing system statutes, the administrative agency’s attorney registering as a user does not relieve a petition of the obligation to personally serve the agency with the document initiating the proceeding.

State ex rel. Drazen Markovic v. Jon E. Litscher, 2018 WI App 44; case activity (including briefs)

The Department of Corrections has the authority to take certain funds from an inmate’s account to pay the restitution ordered in a case even though the inmate has finished serving the sentence in that case.

State ex rel. Ardonis Greer v. Wayne J. Widenhoeft, 2014 WI 19, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity; Majority opinion:  Justice Ziegler; Dissent: Justice Bradley and C.J. Abrahamson

The DOC assured Greer his probation was over and issued a discharge certificate to that effect.  In truth, his probation term hadn’t yet expired.  So when he committed new crimes, the DOC revoked his probation.  The Majority rejects Greer’s claims that the DOC: (1) lacked jurisdiction to revoke probation, (2) denied due process, and (3) is subject to equitable estoppel.

Ardonis Greer v. David H. Schwarz, 2012 WI App 122, petition for review granted 6/12/13, affirmed, 2014 WI 19; case activity

DOC Discharge Certificate (Probation, § 973.09(5)) – Wrongly Issued, Prior to Expiration of Term of Probation 

As a function of “administrative error,” the department of corrections issued Greer a discharge certificate before his term of probation had expired.

Darnell Jackson v. Buchler, 2010 WI 135, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; for Jackson: Michael Halfenger, et al.; Jackson BiC; Buchler Resp.; Reply; Jackson Br. after remand; Buchler Br. after remand

Certiorari Review – Prison Discipline

Evidence before disciplinary committee, in the form of statements of two confidential informants,

court of appeals decision

Appellate Standard of Review, Certiorari

¶9        When we review an application for a writ of certiorari, we review the agency’s decision, not the decision of the circuit court.  Kraus v. City of Waukesha Police & Fire Comm’n, 2003 WI 51, ¶10, 261 Wis. 2d 485, 662 N.W.2d 294.  The scope of certiorari review is limited to whether the Housing Authority:  (1) kept within its jurisdiction;

Michelle Williams v. Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee, 2010 WI App 14

Issue/Holding:

¶13      The circuit court reversed the Housing Authority’s denial of rent assistance because it concluded that, under Gehin v. Wisconsin Group Insurance Board,2005 WI 16, 278 Wis. 2d 111, 692 N.W.2d 572, the Housing Authority could not base its decision solely on uncorroborated hearsay evidence (the officer’s written notes recalling the witness’s statement of what Williams said),

State ex rel. David C. Myers v. Smith, 2009 WI App 49
Pro se

Issue/Holding: Writ of certiorari “misdirected” to wrong respondent (in this instance, review of inmate complaint, improperly naming as respondent institution warden rather than DOC Secretary or designee) must be dismissed:

¶10      We begin by observing that certiorari “is available only for the purpose of reviewing a final determination.” Id.

State ex rel. David C. Myers v. Smith, 2009 WI App 49
Pro se

Issue/Holding: Inmate may not utilize discovery to bypass security-based restrictions on access to banned material such as pornography:

¶16      Inmates must not be allowed to evade security restrictions by simply filing suit or petitioning for writ of certiorari and obtaining prohibited materials through discovery. Due process does not mean that a prisoner has an absolute right to everything relevant to his or her case.