United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM M. CONLEY DISTRICT JUDGE
se plaintiff David Barber claims that defendant Wayne
Stuessy, the records supervisor at Oakhill Correctional
Institution, refused to release Barber from custody after he
completed his sentence in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment.
(Dkt. ##26, 31.) For the reasons explained below,
defendant's motion will be granted and plaintiff's
motion will be denied.
times relevant to this complaint, Barber was incarcerated at
Oakhill Correctional Institution, where Stuessy is the
Offender Records Supervisor. Stuessy's job duties
include: (1) supervising and performing sentencing
calculations; and (2) establishing maximum discharge dates,
parole eligibility, mandatory release and extended
supervision eligibility dates for offenders.
November 27, 2001, Barber was convicted in three different
cases in Rock County. In Case No. 2001-CF-2272, Barber was
convicted of possession with intent to deliver cocaine. In
both Case No. 2001-CF-2363 and 2001-CF-2393, he was convicted
of felony bail jumping. Barber was originally placed on six
years of probation, with his sentences withheld in all three
cases. On April 5, 2002, Barber's probation was revoked
in all three cases. In Case No. 2272, he was sentenced to
four years in prison, 11 years extended supervision; in Case
No. 2363, he was sentenced to one year in prison, nine years
extended supervision; and in Case No. 2393, he was sentenced
to one year in prison, nine years extended supervision. All
of these sentences were to run concurrently.
October 25, 2005, Barber had completed his initial
confinement time and he was entered into a treatment program
at Rock Valley Community Program. On August 3, 2006, he was
terminated from that program for drug use and other
violations. On January 24, 2007, Judge Richard Werner revoked
Barber's extended supervision altogether in Rock County
Case Nos. 2001-CF-2272, -2363 and -2393, for which he
received an additional sentence of three years, three months
and 19 days of re-incarceration time to be served
concurrently. Barber was released from prison on extended
supervision on September 3, 2008.
Barber's extended supervision was once again revoked by a
Revocation Order and Warrant dated April 21, 2010. That order
was signed by Diane Norman, the Division of Hearings and
Appeals Assistant Administrator, who imposed a concurrent
three-year, eight month and 20 day period of reincarceration
in each case. After this second revocation, Barber was set to
be released onto extended supervision on April 7, 2013, at
which point his sentence of extended supervision would be
five years, one month and one day remaining in Case No.
2001-CF-2272; two months and 15 days remaining in Case No.
2363; and no time remaining in Case No. 2393.
November 13, 2012 Order Regarding Sentence Credit
November 13, 2012, while Barber was in prison at Oakhill,
however, Circuit Judge Richard Werner signed an Amended Order
for Reconfinement after Revocation of Extended Supervision in
the three cases. That Order stated in full: “11/12/12
Court Orders 133 Days additional credit - Total of 316
after receiving this order, Barber notified defendant Stuessy
that (1) Judge Werner intended to reduce the time Barber was
currently serving, and (2) as a result, Barber should be
released from Oakhill the following week. Stuessy disagreed
with Barber's interpretation of Judge Werner's order,
however, maintaining that Barber was not entitled to sentence
credit for his current reconfinement period. Stuessy believed
this for three reasons. First, under Wisconsin Department of
Correction's (“DOC”) interpretation of state
statutes, sentencing credit could only be applied to
reconfinement time for time spent in custody in connection
with that same violation. Stuessy originally believed the
sentence credit was granted for time Barber spent at Rock
Valley Community Programs in 2006. Because Barber had been
previously revoked in 2007, however, Stuessy now believed
that any credit for time in 2006 should have been applied to
reduce his reconfinement time in 2007. To the extent it was
not, Stuessy argues that the credit could only be applied to
reduce his remaining term of extended supervision, not his
current reconfinement period.
as Record Supervisor, Stuessy did not believe that the
sentencing court had the legal authority to set
reincarceration time. Rather, under Wis.Stat. §
302.113(9)(am), Stuessy maintained that either DOC or the
Division of Hearings and Appeals (“DHA”) sets the
reincarceration time, depending on whether the offender had a
revocation hearing. Here, DHA had set Barber's
reincarceration time, so Stuessy believed it would violate
§ 302.113(9)(am) to interpret Judge Werner's order
as reducing the current reincarceration time.
it was defendant Stuessy's understanding that credit
could be earned only for time spent at a treatment facility,
at least if leaving the facility would subject the individual
to escape charges. Stuessy did not believe Barber would have
been subject to escape charges if he had left Rock Valley
Community Programs, so Stuessy questioned whether Barber was
entitled to any credit at all. Stuessy also consulted with
Stephanie Nally, the Division of Adult Institutions'
Records Consultant, regarding the relevant statutes. She