Prisoner Legal Loan Authorization.

Byline: Derek Hawkins

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...