Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01189/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01189-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted September 22, 2016*

Decided September 22, 2016

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 16‐1189

RONALD F. PERRAULT,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 15‐cv‐144‐bbc

Barbara B. Crabb,

Judge.

O R D E R

Ronald Perrault, a Wisconsin prisoner, appeals from the dismissal of his

complaint alleging that employees of the state courts and the Department of Corrections

should be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for overlooking a sentencing mistake that

caused him to serve several months in prison after his sentence should have expired.

                                                 

* The defendants were not served with process in the district court and are not

participating in this appeal. We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without

oral argument because the appeal is frivolous. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 16-1189 Document: 30 Filed: 09/22/2016 Pages: 3
No. 16‐1189    Page 2

The district court concluded that Perrault’s allegations fail to state a claim. We agree

with that conclusion and affirm the dismissal.

Perrault pleaded no contest to intentionally failing to pay child support and was

sentenced to a total of 5 years’ imprisonment followed by 5 years’ extended

supervision. See WIS. STAT. §§ 948.22, 939.62(1)(b) (1999–2000). Perrault completed his

prison term, but 9 years after he was sentenced he tested positive for drug use and was

reimprisoned by order of the Department of Corrections. Three months later a prison

registrar wrote the sentencing judge, the prosecutor, Perrault, and Perrault’s public

defender seeking clarification about the revoked term of extended supervision, which,

the registrar believed, should have been capped by statute at a maximum of 3 years.

See id. § 973.01(b), (c) (1999–2000); State v. Volk, 654 N.W.2d 24, 33 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).

The sentencing court agreed that a mistake had been made and on Perrault’s motion

reduced the term of extended supervision to 3 years. The Department of Corrections

then vacated its order revoking Perrault’s term of supervision and released him to

another county where unrelated charges were pending.

In his complaint Perrault alleges that he served an extra 237 days in prison and

395 days of supervision because employees of the state courts and Department of

Corrections overlooked the sentencing error. In Perrault’s view the defendants knew

that errors could lead to an impermissibly long term of confinement or supervision and

had a responsibility to check the accuracy of the sentence pronounced by the state

judge. Because the defendants did not catch the mistake, Perrault says, they violated his

Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and his

Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. He seeks damages and an apology.

(Perrault’s complaint also includes other claims against these defendants and his public

defender, but the additional claims have been abandoned.) At screening, see 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A, the district court construed Perrault’s complaint as raising a claim under the

Eighth Amendment and dismissed the action for failure to state a claim.  

This appeal is frivolous. An inmate will have a claim under the Eighth

Amendment if, because of the deliberate indifference of prison administrators, he is

confined longer than authorized by the sentencing court (the Eighth Amendment

governs in this context, so Perrault’s attempt to cast his allegations into a second claim

under the Due Process Clause was ineffective). See Childress v. Walker, 787 F.3d 433, 438–

39 (7th Cir. 2015); Burke v. Johnston, 452 F.3d 665, 667, 669 (7th Cir. 2006); Campbell v.

Peters, 256 F.3d 695, 700 (7th Cir. 2001). But as the district court recognized, Perrault

alleges that the defendants complied with the unambiguous terms of the sentence, not

Case: 16-1189 Document: 30 Filed: 09/22/2016 Pages: 3
No. 16‐1189    Page 3

that the defendants ignored or otherwise failed to properly execute the judgment of the

sentencing court. At most Perrault implies that the defendants were negligent in not

recognizing that the judge who sentenced him made an error of law, but even if

Wisconsin law imposed a duty on any of these defendants to question the judgment,

negligent conduct does not violate the Constitution. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327,

330–31 (1986); Armato v. Grounds, 766 F.3d 713, 721 (7th Cir. 2014).

Perrault incurred one strike for filing his lawsuit in the district court and a

second strike for pursuing this frivolous appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-1189 Document: 30 Filed: 09/22/2016 Pages: 3