Case Title: Shannon Labine v. Stephen Puckett

Citation: 2004 WI 25

Docket Number: 2002AP002642-W

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2004-03-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
2004 WI 25 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-2642-W 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Shannon Labine,  
          Petitioner-Petitioner, 
     v. 
Stephen Puckett,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
(no cite) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 25, 2004.   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
February 10, 2004   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Dane   
 
JUDGE: 
Daniel R. Moeser   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
 
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: SYKES and ROGGENSACK, J.J., did not participate.  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the petitioner-petitioner there was a brief by Nicholas 
C. Zales and Zales Law Office, Milwaukee, and oral argument by 
Nicholas C. Zales. 
 
For the respondent the cause was argued by David E. Hoel, 
assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was Peggy A. 
Lautenschlager, attorney general. 
 
 
 
 
2004 WI 25 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
No.  02-2642-W 
(L.C. No. 
02 IP 370) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Shannon Labine,  
 
          Petitioner-Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Stephen Puckett,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 25, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Dismissed.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We dismiss the petition for review as 
improvidently granted.   
¶2 
Shannon Labine, an inmate at the Prairie Correctional 
Facility, a private facility in Minnesota, petitioned this court 
for review of an unpublished order of the court of appeals 
affirming the circuit court's denial of his request for a waiver 
of costs and fees.  We granted review on a single issue:  "Is 
the petitioner, who is currently serving a Wisconsin prison 
sentence at an out-of-state correctional facility (Prairie 
Correctional Facility) in Minnesota, a 'prisoner' within the 
No. 
02-2642-W   
 
2 
 
meaning of Wis. Stat. § 814.29(1m)1 and hence entitled to a 
waiver of costs and fees without first demonstrating that his 
underlying pleading states a claim upon which relief may be 
granted as required by § 814.29(1)(c)?"   
¶3 
Both Labine and the State agree that he is not a 
prisoner 
within 
the 
meaning 
of 
Wis. Stat. § 814.29(1m).  
Although the parties urge the Court to reach this conclusion for 
different reasons, we conclude that this case is moot.  A 
decision will not affect Labine.  Furthermore, the parties agree 
on the issue of law and therefore we do not have adversarial 
parties.  We therefore dismiss the petition for review as having 
been improvidently granted. 
¶4 
We set forth the facts of the case in order to place 
the dismissal in context.  Labine filed a pro se certiorari 
petition in the Dane County Circuit Court seeking to challenge 
the decision of the Department of Corrections' Program Review 
Committee (PRC) to deny him a security upgrade and a transfer to 
a lower security facility.  The circuit court, Daniel R. Moeser, 
Judge, 
denied 
Labine's 
request 
for 
a 
fee 
waiver 
under 
Wis. Stat. § 814.29(1)(c),2 concluding that his petition stated 
no claim upon which it could grant relief.   
                                                 
1 Unless 
otherwise 
indicated, 
all 
references 
to 
the 
Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version. 
2 Wisconsin Stat. § 814.29(1)(a) and (c) read as follows: 
814.29(1)(a)  Except as provided in sub. (1m), any 
person may commence, prosecute or defend any action or 
special proceeding in any court, or any writ of error 
or appeal therein, without being required to give 
No. 
02-2642-W   
 
3 
 
¶5 
Relying on State ex rel. Speener v. Gudmanson, 2000 WI 
App 78, ¶¶7-16, 234 Wis. 2d 461, 610 N.W.2d 136, the court of 
appeals concluded that an inmate not imprisoned in a Wisconsin 
institution is not a "prisoner" under § 801.02(7)(a)2.3 and 
                                                                                                                                                             
security for costs or to pay any service or fee, upon 
order of the court based on a finding that because of 
poverty the person is unable to pay the costs of the 
action or special proceeding, or any writ of error or 
appeal therein, or to give security for those costs. 
. . . . 
(c) . . . The court may deny the request for an order 
if the court finds that the affidavit states no claim, 
defense or appeal upon which the court may grant 
relief. 
3 Wisconsin Stat. § 801.02(7)(a) reads: 
(7)(a) In this subsection: 
1. "Correctional institution" means any state or local 
facility 
that 
incarcerates or detains 
any 
adult 
accused of, charged with, convicted of, or sentenced 
for any crime. A correctional institution includes a 
Type 1 prison, as defined in s. 301.01 (5), a Type 2 
prison, as defined in s. 301.01 (6), a county jail and 
a house of correction. 
2. "Prisoner" means any person who is incarcerated, 
imprisoned or otherwise detained in a correctional 
institution or who is arrested or otherwise detained 
by a law enforcement officer. "Prisoner" does not 
include any of the following: 
a. A person committed under ch. 980. 
b. A person bringing an action seeking relief from a 
judgment terminating parental rights. 
c. A person bringing an action seeking relief from a 
judgment of conviction or a sentence of a court, 
including an action for an extraordinary writ or a 
supervisory writ seeking relief from a judgment of 
No. 
02-2642-W   
 
4 
 
therefore 
is 
not 
a 
prisoner 
under 
§ 814.29(1m),4 
which 
incorporates 
the 
definition 
of 
"prisoner" 
appearing 
in 
§ 801.02(7)(a)2.5  The court of appeals concluded that the 
circuit court properly denied Labine's fee waiver request 
because the underlying pleading failed to state a claim. 
¶6 
Labine argues that all Wisconsin prisoners in out-of-
state facilities——whether public or private——are not "prisoners" 
under Wis. Stat. § 814.29(1m).  The State would have us conclude 
that Wisconsin prisoners in out-of-state private facilities are 
not "prisoners" under the statute and would have us withhold 
decision on whether Wisconsin prisoners in out-of-state public 
facilities are "prisoners."  The parties agree that the 
interpretation of the statutory definition of "prisoner" will 
have significant consequences for the application of the 
                                                                                                                                                             
conviction or a sentence of a court or an action under 
s. 809.30, 809.40, 973.19 , 974.06 or 974.07. 
d. A person bringing an action under s. 809.50 seeking 
relief from an order or judgment not appealable as of 
right that was entered in a proceeding under ch. 980 
or in a case specified under s. 809.30 or 809.40. 
e. A person who is not serving a sentence for the 
conviction of a crime but who is detained, admitted or 
committed under ch. 51 or 55 or s. 971.14 (2) or (5). 
4 Wisconsin Stat. § 814.29(1m) (b) and (c) state that a 
court shall issue an order permitting a prisoner to commence or 
defend a proceeding without the prepayment of fees or costs upon 
meeting the conditions stated therein. 
5 See 
Wis. Stat. § 814.29(1m)(a), 
providing: 
"In 
this 
subsection, 
'prisoner' 
has 
the 
meaning 
given 
in 
s. 
801.02(7)(a)2." 
No. 
02-2642-W   
 
5 
 
Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 1997 Wis. Act 133, which 
created §§ 801.02(7)(a) and 814.29(1m), although neither of the 
parties' briefs discusses those consequences in great depth.   
¶7 
We agree with the parties that the determination of 
who is a "prisoner" under the PLRA is an important question of 
statutory interpretation.  Therefore, we conclude that we should 
address that question when it is before this court in a case 
with 
adversary 
parties 
and 
with 
full 
briefing 
of 
the 
consequences of any statutory interpretation.  
¶8 
Accordingly we conclude that review in this case was 
improvidently granted, and we dismiss the petition for review. 
By the Court.—Review of the decision of the court of 
appeals is dismissed. 
¶9 
DIANE S. SYKES, J., and PATIENCE D. ROGGENSACK, J., 
did not participate. 
 
No. 
02-2642-W   
 
 
 
1