Case Title: John S. Bergmann v. Gary R. McCaughtry

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1995AP002108

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1997-06-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
95-2108 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
John S. Bergmann,  
          Petitioner-Respondent, 
     v. 
Gary R. McCaughtry, 
           Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner. 
  
 
ON REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at:  207 Wis. 2d 639, 559 N.W.2d 923 
 
 
 
(Ct. App. 1996) 
 
 
 
UNPUBLISHED 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
June 20, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
May 30, 1997 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Dodge 
 
JUDGE: 
Joseph E. Schultz 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For the respondent-appellant-petitioner the cause 
was argued by Charles D. Hoornstra, assistant attorney general 
with whom on the briefs was James E. Doyle, attorney general. 
 
 
For the petitioner-respondent there was a brief 
and oral argument by Howard B. Eisenberg, Milwaukee. 
 
 
 
No. 95-2108 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 95-2108 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
John S. Bergmann, 
 
  
Petitioner-Respondent, 
 
 
v. 
 
Gary R. McCaughtry, 
 
 
Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 20, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed. 
¶1 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE.   This is a 
review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals 
affirming an order of the Circuit Court for Dodge County, Joseph 
E. Schultz, Reserve Judge.
1 The circuit court vacated the prison 
disciplinary findings of four major conduct violations by John 
S. Bergmann, an inmate at the Waupun Correctional Institution, 
unless the Department of Corrections (the Department) could show 
that written notice was given Bergmann as required by Wis. Adm. 
Code § DOC 303.81 (June, 1994).
2 The court of appeals concluded 
                     
1 Bergmann v. McCaughtry, No. 95-2108, unpublished slip op. 
(Wis. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 1996). 
Gary R. McCaughtry is the warden of the Waupun Correctional 
Institution. Hereafter he will be referred to as the Department. 
2 All references to the administrative code are to the June 
1994 publication. 
 
 
No. 95-2108 
 
2 
that the Department was required to provide Bergmann with notice 
of the disciplinary hearing as required by § DOC 303.81. The 
Department conceded in this court that no such notice was given. 
Because the Department failed to provide Bergmann with written 
notice of the disciplinary hearing in compliance with department 
regulation § DOC 303.81, we affirm the decision of the court of 
appeals; the prison disciplinary findings are therefore vacated.  
I. 
¶2 
The facts are not in dispute for purposes of this 
review. Department staff at Waupun Correctional Institution 
alleged that Bergmann violated previous direct orders of the 
Department by attempting to communicate with his young son.
3 Four 
violations were alleged.  
¶3 
On May 9, 1994, Bergmann was notified of the first 
allegation and the fact of an upcoming disciplinary hearing by a 
"NOTICE OF MAJOR DISCIPLINARY HEARING RIGHTS AND WAIVER OF MAJOR 
HEARING AND WAIVER OF TIME" (Form DOC-71, hereafter "notice of 
hearing rights") and an "ADULT CONDUCT REPORT" (Form DOC-9, 
hereafter "conduct report"). With regard to the time of the 
upcoming hearing, the notice of hearing rights notified Bergmann 
as follows: "The Hearing Officer or designee will notify you and 
your staff advocate of the date, time and place of the hearing. 
The hearing shall be held not sooner than 2 days and not more 
than 21 days after the date you were given a copy of the above 
referenced conduct report." Bergmann signed the notice of 
                     
3 In an unpublished order a federal court had previously 
ruled that the Department's order not to write his son did not 
violate 
Bergmann's 
First 
Amendment 
rights. 
Bergmann 
v. 
McCaughtry, 93-C-0244-C (W.D. Wis., Dec. 27, 1993), aff'd mem., 
48 F.3d 1221 (7th Cir. 1995).  
 
 
No. 95-2108 
 
3 
hearing rights, indicating that he had read and understood his 
hearing rights; he did not sign the waiver of a formal hearing 
or of the time limits for a hearing. 
¶4 
On May 10 Bergmann requested in writing that the 
hearing on the first conduct report be held on May 26, as he 
needed time to obtain an affidavit from a person outside the 
prison. On May 18 Bergmann received three sets of notices of 
hearing rights and conduct reports, one for each of the other 
three alleged violations.  
¶5 
Bergmann received no other written notice of a hearing 
or hearings. On May 26 an adjustment committee held a hearing on 
all four violations. The record indicates that Bergmann did not 
attend the hearing.
4 Bergmann was found guilty of each of the 
violations. The Department affirmed the determinations of guilt. 
¶6 
On certiorari review the circuit court held that the 
Department had not furnished Bergmann with notice of the hearing 
as required by § DOC 303.81(9). Accordingly, the circuit court 
remanded to the adjustment committee to supplement the record to 
show compliance with § DOC 303.81(9), if possible. The circuit 
court further ruled that were the committee unable to show 
compliance, the decision of the committee would be vacated. The 
Department made no submission supplementing the record. Rather, 
the Department appealed the circuit court's decision and order 
to the court of appeals. 
¶7 
The court of appeals affirmed the order of the circuit 
court, concluding that the circuit court properly ruled that the 
                     
4 The Department asserts that Bergmann declined to attend 
the hearing; Bergmann does not dispute this assertion. 
 
 
No. 95-2108 
 
4 
Department had failed to give Bergmann the notice required by 
§ DOC 303.81(9). The court of appeals concluded that "the notice 
of the hearing must also inform the inmate which charges will be 
heard at the specified time." Bergmann v. McCaughtry, No. 95-
2108, unpublished slip op. at 4 (Wis. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 1996). 
II. 
¶8 
A single issue was raised by the Department in its 
petition for review: Did the Department comply with the notice 
requirement of Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 303.81(9)? Bergmann raised 
an additional issue in his brief to the court: If the Department 
complied with the notice regulation, does the notice regulation 
provide due process of law? Because our resolution of the first 
issue is dispositive, we need not and do not address the second, 
constitutional issue. 
¶9 
It is undisputed by the parties, and we agree, that 
the notices of hearing rights and conduct reports which Bergmann 
received (Forms DOC-71 and DOC-9) complied with § DOC 303.76.
5 We 
                     
5 Section 303.76 provides in relevant part as follows: 
DOC 303.76 Hearing procedure for major violations. (1) 
 
NOTICE. When an inmate is alleged to have committed a 
major violation . . . a copy of the approved conduct 
report shall be given to the inmate within 2 working 
days after its approval. The conduct report shall 
inform the inmate of the rules which he or she is 
alleged to have violated, . . . that he or she may 
exercise the right to a due process hearing . . . that 
if a formal due process hearing is chosen, the inmate 
may present oral, written, documentary and physical 
evidence . . . . 
 
. . . .  
 
(3) TIME LIMITS. A due process hearing shall be held no 
sooner than 2 working days or later than 21 days after 
the inmate receives a copy of the conduct report and 
hearing notice. 
 
 
 
No. 95-2108 
 
5 
must determine whether an inmate is entitled to a second written 
notice by virtue of § DOC 303.81. Sections DOC 303.81(7) and DOC 
303.81(9) provide in relevant part as follows: 
 
DOC 303.81 Due process hearing: witnesses. 
 
. . . .  
 
(7) After determining which witnesses will be called 
for the accused, the hearing officer shall notify the 
inmate of the decision in writing and schedule a time 
for a hearing when [witnesses and others] can be 
present. . . .  
 
. . . .  
 
(9) The hearing officer shall prepare notice of the 
hearing and give it to the accused, the advocate for 
the accused (if any), the committee and all witnesses, 
including the staff member who wrote the conduct 
report. 
¶10 The Department's counsel, in response to questions at 
oral argument, conceded that the regulations require that two 
written notices be given to an inmateone under § DOC 303.76 and 
the other under § DOC 303.81. Interpretation of a regulation is 
a question of law. Grohmann v. Grohmann, 189 Wis. 2d 532, 535-
36, 525 N.W.2d 261 (1995). A party's concession of law does not 
bind the court. Fletcher v. Eagle River Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 156 
Wis. 2d 165, 168, 456 N.W.2d 788 (1990) (only concessions of 
fact, not law, are proper subject of judicial admissions).  
¶11 In this case, the concession is by an attorney 
representing the agency that promulgated the regulations being 
interpreted. The court ordinarily accords deference to a state 
agency's 
interpretation 
and 
application 
of 
its 
own 
administrative 
regulations 
unless 
the 
interpretation 
is 
inconsistent with the language of the regulation or is clearly 
 
 
No. 95-2108 
 
6 
erroneous.
6 The record in the present case indicates no settled 
department interpretation of the regulations at issue. Moreover, 
the commentary to the regulations sheds no light on the question 
before the court.
7 In any event, we need not decide whether 
counsel's concession becomes an administrative interpretation to 
which we might give deference. Our independent analysis, 
benefiting from the analyses of the circuit court and court of 
appeals, leads us to agree with the Department's counsel, and 
Bergmann, that a second written notice is required under § DOC 
303.81.  
¶12 The text of the regulations requires a second written 
notice after the written notice under § DOC 303.76 is given. 
Section DOC 303.76(3) specifies that "[a] due process hearing 
shall be held no sooner than 2 working days or later than 21 
days after the inmate receives a copy of the conduct report and 
hearing notice." Section DOC 303.81(7) requires that "[a]fter 
determining which witnesses will be called for the accused, the 
hearing officer shall notify the inmate of the decision in 
writing and schedule a time for a hearing . . . ." Section DOC 
                     
6 Pfeiffer v. Board of Regents, 110 Wis. 2d 146, 154-55, 328 
N.W.2d 279 (1983); Beal v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of 
Madison, 90 Wis. 2d 171, 182-83, 279 N.W.2d 693 (1979). 
7 Bergmann argues that the statement in the notice of 
hearing rights that "[t]he Hearing Officer or designee will 
notify you and your staff advocate of the date, time and place 
of the hearing," provides a conclusive department interpretation 
of § DOC 303.81 and as such is entitled to deference by a 
reviewing court. Because we conclude that even on an independent 
review 
of 
the 
regulations 
and 
this 
record 
Bergmann's 
interpretation is correct, we decline to consider whether a 
department 
form 
notice 
may 
be 
considered 
an 
agency 
interpretation of its regulation which may be entitled to 
deference. 
 
 
No. 95-2108 
 
7 
303.81(9) requires that "[t]he hearing officer shall prepare 
notice of the hearing and give it to the accused . . . ." These 
three subsections, when read together, require that written 
notice of the hearing be given to the accused after the initial 
notice under § DOC 303.76 is given. 
¶13 We agree with the parties that the notice of hearing 
rights (Form DOC-71) does not supply the notice required by DOC 
§ 303.81; it supplies the notice required by DOC § 303.76. Nor 
does Form DOC-71 meet the requirements for a notice under DOC 
§ 303.81. The notice required under DOC § 303.81 is to come from 
a hearing officer; Form DOC-71 is signed by a correctional 
officer, not a hearing officer. Furthermore, Form DOC-71 cannot 
comply with the § DOC 303.81(9) requirement that notice be given 
to the staff advocate, the committee and all witnesses. When 
Form DOC-71 is given to the inmate, an advocate has not yet been 
appointed, the witnesses are unknown and even the committee 
members may not be known. We therefore conclude that Form DOC-71 
was meant to comply with § DOC 303.76, not with the notice of 
hearing requirement in § DOC 303.81.  
¶14 The parties agree that only one written notice was 
given to Bergmann and that the second written notice required by 
§ DOC 303.81 was never provided to him. This defect in notice of 
proceedings was never rectified and the Department's failure to 
comply with its own regulations providing a basic procedural 
right such as notice invalidates the proceedings conducted in 
the present case. 
¶15 Our inquiry, for purposes of this case, ends here. We 
need not, and do not, address other issues involving the second 
 
 
No. 95-2108 
 
8 
written notice, such as what information the second written 
notice must contain. The Department explained at oral argument 
that its primary objective in bringing this case to this court 
was to clarify the court of appeals' language that "the notice 
of the hearing must also inform the inmate which charges will be 
heard at the specified time." Bergmann, slip op. at 4 (emphasis 
added). This sentence in the court of appeals decision was 
apparently intended to paraphrase language in Irby v. Macht, 184 
Wis. 2d 831, 845, 522 N.W.2d 9, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 
(1994), which cited § DOC 303.81(9) as providing that "inmates 
must be given notice of the hearing's time." Irby, 184 Wis. 2d 
at 845, quoted in Bergmann, slip op. at 4 (emphasis added by 
court of appeals). 
¶16 The Department has not made clear the basis for its 
dissatisfaction with Irby or with the court of appeals decision 
in Bergmann relying on Irby. The Department appears to view 
these decisions as requiring it to provide inmates with notice 
of the precise hour of the hearing with no allowance for 
deviation from the specified time. The Department does not 
explain why it views either the Irby decision or the court of 
appeals decision in Bergmann as requiring that the precise hour 
of the hearing be provided or that a postponement for cause, and 
 
 
No. 95-2108 
 
9 
without prejudice to an inmate's ability to defend against the 
charges, would not be in compliance with the regulations.
8  
¶17 The Department asserts that the written notices need 
provide no more notice of time than that the hearing will be 
held no sooner than two and no more than twenty-one days from 
the time the inmate is given the written conduct report and 
notice of hearing rights. In short, the Department asks us to 
reconsider or clarify Irby. We decline to reconsider Irby or to 
further construe the degree of specificity required by the 
regulations with regard to notice of the time of the hearing. As 
Bergmann's brief properly points out, neither inquiry is 
necessary to a resolution of the controversy presented in this 
case. The inquiry the Department asks the court to undertake 
must await a case in which it is squarely presented as the basis 
for an actual controversy.  
¶18 We conclude that Wis. Adm. Code §§ DOC 303.76 and 
303.81 require that an inmate be given two written notices of a 
hearing 
to 
adjudicate 
an 
allegation 
of 
a 
major 
conduct 
                     
8 Both parties call the court's attention to Saenz v. 
Murphy, 153 Wis. 2d 660, 451 N.W.2d 780 (Ct. App. 1989), 
reversed on other grounds, 162 Wis. 2d 54, 469 N.W.2d 611 
(1991). The effect of a court of appeals decision that has been 
reviewed by the court and resolved on a different issue has not 
been definitively answered. In any event, the court of appeals 
did not consider in Saenz the issue which forms the basis of the 
decision in the present case.  
 
 
No. 95-2108 
 
10
violation. Because Bergmann was not given the second written 
notice, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals. The 
prison disciplinary findings are vacated. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed. 
 
 
No. 95-2108 
 
11
1 
 
 
No. 95-2108 
 
12
 
1 
 
2