## I n t he



# U n ited S ta te s C o u r t o f A p p e a ls

F o r th e S e v e n th C ircu it

____________ N o. 07

- 2984 J AMESD OMKA , Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant , v . P ORT AGE C OUN TY, W ISCO NSIN , D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.

____________ App eal fro m the United S t ates Di stric tC ou rt fo r the Western Di stric tof Wi sc ons in. No. 07-C-0 06 3-S—Jo hn C. Sh abaz, Judge

.

____________ A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 14, 2 0 0 8 —D ECIDED A PRI L 24, 2008

____________ Befo re M A NI ON , R OV NERa nd W I L L I A MS , C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i t Judg e . As a re sul t of J am es Dom ka’ s pl ea ba r g ain f o l l o wi nghi s thi r d- o f f en se a r r es tf o r dr i vi ng und er the i nfl uence, hi s s ent ence i ncl ud ed w or k- re l eas e pr i vi l eg es ( k no wn i n W i s co ns i n a s “Hube r pr i vi l eg es ”) a nd the o pp or t unity t o ser ve the m ajority o fhi s j ai l t i m e a t hom e under Por t age Count y’ s Hom e Det ent ion Pro gr am ( “ HDP” )

. Whi l e u nd e r the HDP , Do mka r e g i s t e r e d a po si t i ve a l co ho l r ea di ngo n a S o br i et o r , ana l co ho l b r ea tht e s tma c h i n e c o n n e c t e d t o th e S h e r i f f ’ s D e p a r t m en t thro ugh Do m ka’s phone l i ne. Dom ka’ s Hu ber pri vi l ege s2 N o. 07

- 2984

Se c t i on 30 3. 08 oft he W i s c onsin Sta t ut es , al s o kn own as t he 1 “H u b er L aw ,” go v e rn s w or k release p riv ilege s f or W iscon sin cou nty jail i nm ates. an d p art i ci pati o n i n the HDP wer e the n r ev o k ed an d he w as re quir ed t o serve hi s r em ai ni ng t i m e i n j ai l

. Dom ka fi l ed sui tag ai nstPor t age Count y u n d er 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983, alle gin g th at h e h ad co n stitu tion ally p ro tec ted libe rty in tere sts in h is H u b er p riv ileg es an d th e H D P an d tha t, in vi ol at i on o f the Four t eenth A m endm ent , he was depri ved o fthe se wi tho utthe r eq ui si t e pr o ce dur aldue pr o ce ss . The di str i ctc o ur tf o und tha t Domka ha d wai ve d a nyc o ns t i t ut i o na l l yr e qu i r e d du e pr o c e s s r i g ht s he m a yha v e h a d, an d granted Portage Cou n ty’ s m oti on for sum m ary j ud gm en t. W e agree w ith the d ist rictcou rtand affirm i t s dec i si o n.
I. O n D ec em b er 10 , 200 4, Jam es D om ka d ro ve h is c ar into a di t ch. Fo und t o have an al coholco nt ento f

. 179 , Dom ka was c ha r ged w i th h i s thi r d o f f en se Ope r ati ngUnder the I nfl ue nc e o fI nt o xi ca nt s an d o n Apr i l 22, 200 5 was s en ten c ed to 10 5 d ay s in j ail w ith H u b er w or k-r ele as e p riv il ege s, the fi rs t30 t o be s er ved i n j ail and the bal ance o n el ec t r o ni c m o ni t o r i ng . Pur su an tt o hi s pl ea a g r ee m en ta nd th e s en ten c e , D om ka w as to ha ve H u b er p riv ileg es bo th 1 w hi l e s er vi ng i n th e j ai l and w hi l e fi ni shi ng hi s s ent ence ou tsi d e the j ailon an electronic m onitor un d er W iscons in’s H om e D ete n tion P ro gr am (“H D P ”). W isc on sin Statu te § 3 02 .42 5, w h ich cr ea tes the H D P , p ro vid es in r ele va n t pa rt: Su b j e c t t o th e lim itation u n d er su b . (3), a co u n ty sher i f fo r a sup er i nt endentof a ho use o fco rr ect i on m ayN o. 07

- 2984 3 pla ce in the hom e det ent i on pro gr am any perso n confi ned i n j ai l wh o has be en ar re st ed fo r, char ged wi th, c o nv i ct ed o fo r s en t en ce d f o r a c r i m e. The sh er iff or su p er in ten d en t m ay tran sfe r an y p ris on er in th e h om e d ete n tion p ro gr am to th e jail. W is. St at. § 302.425(2). The st at ut e further provi des: If a p ris on er d es c r ib ed u n d er su b . (2) an d the d ep ar tm en t a gr ee, the she ri f fo r superi nt endentm ay pla ce the pr i soner i n the ho m e det en t i o n pr o g r am an d p rovide tha t the prison er be detained at the prison er’s p lace o fr es i den ce o r o the r pl ac e des i g na t ed bythe sher i f f or superi nt endent and b e m oni t or ed by an act i ve el ect ro ni c m oni t or i ng sy st em . T he she ri f fo r superi nt endentshal l es t abl i sh r eas onabl e ter m s of det ent i on a nd e n su re thatthe pri sone r i s pro vi ded a wri t t en st at em ento fthose t er m s, in c lu ding a descr i pti on o fthe det ent i on m oni t or i ng pro cedures an d re q u ire m en ts an d of an y ap p lica b l e lia b ility iss u es . . . . W is. St at. § 302.435(3). T h e Por t age County Sher i f f ’ s Dep ar t m ent , pu rs uant to the W i sc o ns i n s t atut e, c o di fi ed the t er m s of it s H DP i n a three page, 24 para gr aph docum enten titl ed “Por t age Co u n tyS h e r i f f ’ s D e p a r t me n tH o me D e t e n t i o n P r o g r a m” ( the “PCSDH DP ”) and est abl i shed the u se ofa So bri et or as p a r to fth e p r o g r a m. Dom ka ser ved hi s t im e i n the Por t age Count y j ai l fro m J une 7thr o ug h J un e 2 7, 2 00 5. On J une 2 7, Do m k a an d P en n y B or sk i, th e P or tag e C ou n ty offic er w h o w as in charg e o fadm i n i st er i ng the H DP , m etand t oge ther4 N o. 07

- 2984

r ev i ewe d ea ch ofthe 24 i t ems c o nt aine d i n the PCS DH DP. Af t e r i nd i c a t i ngt o Off i c e r Bo r s k i tha th e u nd e r s t o o d a provi si on a nd ag re ed t o com p ly w i th i t , Dom ka i ni t i al ed ea ch par ag r aph i ndi vi dual l y . The f o l l o wi ngpa r ag r aph s ofthe PCSDH DP ar e o fparti cul ar r el evance : I u nd e r s t a nd the co nsum pti on o fal cohol i c be ver age s o r u n law fu l d ru gs or n ar c otic s is p ro h ibite d a n d w ill re sul tin im m edi at e r em ova lfro m the H om e Det ent i on P ro gr am , l os s of H u b er P riv ileg es an d retu rn ed (sic ) to th e P or tag e C ou n ty Jail. (P ar ag ra p h 8.) I u n d erst and a vi ol at i on o fany ofthese condi t i ons of agr eem entwil l cau se m y r em ova l fro m the pro gr am w itho u t n otic e or av en u e o f ap p ea l .

. . . (P ar ag ra p h 12 .) W e wil l nott ol er at e a ny excuse s, such a s, butnot l i m i t ed t o : f ai l i ngthe v oice t es t , mis singa c al l , f ai l i ng to ge t off the p h on e w h en the m ac h in e is tryin g to c all y o u et c. Al l the a bo ve a r e g r o unds f o r r emov alo f fthe Progra m . I n ad d it ion, iti s you r resp ons ibi li ty to inform your house hol d ofthe co nd i t i ons tha t n eed t o be follo w ed . (Pa ra gr ap h 16 .) As a r eq ui r ed par to fthe H DP, atra ndo m t i m es thr o ug hou t each day Dom ka w oul d have t o speak and bl ow int o the S obr i et or . A tthe m eet i ng o n J une 27, Offi ce Bor skial so re vi ew ed w i th Dom ka the “B I S obr i et or Cl i entI nfo rm ation ” fo rm w h ich p ro vid ed , inte r alia : A n y a lco h ol re ad in g o n the so b rie tor w ill res u lt in im m edi at e r emov alfr o m HDP an d y o u wi l l l o se y o ur H DP & H ube r Pr i vi l eg es . Be a war e tha t i ng es t i nga ny f oo d or dri nk with al coholcan re su l ti n a pos i t i ve br ea th a l co ho l t es t
. Exa m pl e, mouthwas h a nd t o o thp as te; ch ew in g tob ac c o; co u g h m ed icin e; va n illa ext ra ct ; & so m e s auces and candies

.N o. 07

- 2984 5 I n Offi cer Bor ski ’ s pre sence, Dom ka si gned thi s f or m as wel l , b el o w the st atem en twhi ch r ea d “ I unde r st an d a ny vi ol at i on( s) o fthese rul es can r esul tin term i nat i on fro m th e H D P P ro gr am .” Betw een J une 27 and J uly10 , 20 05, the S obr i et or r eco rded seve ra l f ai l ed t est s a s the resul to fuser er ro r, none ofwh i ch re gi st er ed a pos i t i ve al coholr eadi ng. On Su n d ay , J uly10 , 20 05 a t9 : 55 a m , Do m k a’ s S o br i et o r t es t r es ul t ed i n a posi t i ve al coholr eadi ng of.0 21. A s w i th al l indiv i du al s o n a S obr i et or pro gr am wh o t estposi t i ve f or al cohol , Dom ka w as aut om at i cal l y r et est ed bythe S obr i et or fi ve m i nute s l a t e r . Do mka ’ s 10: 0 0 a m S o b r i e t o r t e s ta g a i n r e g i s t e r e d a posi t i ve al coholr eadi ng o f

. 021. W hen Offi ce Borsk i re t urned t o w or k early M onday m or ni ng, J uly11 , and saw Dom ka’ s S obrietor h ad re

co r ded two po si t i ve a l co hol test s the pr ev i o us da y , s he c all e d D om ka an d req u es ted tha t he rep or t t o jail w ithin the ho ur . As a r es ul tof his v i o l ati o n o fthe PCS DH DP, Domka ’ s par t i ci pati on i n the HDP was the n r ev o k ed an d hi s p a r t i c i pa t i o n i n the Hub e r p ro gr am wa s s us pe nd e d. D om ka se rv ed the ba lan c e o f h is s en ten c e, 41 d a ys , in the Por t age Count y j ai l withoutH uber pri vi l ege s. Dom ka w as re l eas ed on Au gust21 , 20 05 and subsequentl y b ro ughta 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983 case ag ai nstPor t age C ou n ty , alleg in g th at th e C ou n ty u n c on stitu tion ally dep r i v e d h i m o fl ib e r tyi nt e r e s t s wi tho utdu e p r o c e s s. Jud ge Sha baz granted the C o u n ty’ s m oti on for sum m ary j u d gm en t, h old in g th at ev en i fD o m ka d id h av e lib er ty i nt er est s i n re m ai ni ng i n the H D P and H uber pri vi l ege s w hi ch w oul d t ri gge r const i t ut i onal l y r e qu i re d du e pr oce ss, he had w ai ved those r i ght s i n the H DP ag re em ent s.6 N o. 07

- 2984 II. Re vi ewi ngthe l o wer c o ur t ’ s dec i si o n deno vo a n d v i e wi ngthe f ac t s an d a l l r ea sonab l e i nf er en ce s i n the l i g ht m os t fav or ab le t o th e pa rty op p os i n g ju d gm en t, e . g. , CSX T ransp. , Inc. v. A ppa lachian R ailcarSe rvs . , Inc. , 50 9 F
. 3d 384, 38 6 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) , we ag r ee tha tDom k a’ s ca se pr es en t s no g e n uin e issue of m ateri al f act and the refore the sum m ary j ud g men tg r a nt e d t o P o r t a g e Co un tys ho ul d b e a f fi r med , seeFe d .R .C iv.P . 56(c ); C el otex Corp. v. C atre tt , 47 7 U.S
. 31 7, 322 (1986 ).

A. D om ka ’ s f i rs t hu rd le is id en tifyin g a p ro tec ted inte re st. “A n es se n ti al c om p on en t of a p ro c ed u ra l d u e p ro c es s c laim i s a p ro t ect ed proper ty o r l iber ty int er est
. ” M i nc h v

. Ci ty of Chic ago , 48 6 F
. 3d 294, 3 02 (7 th Cir

. 19 97) ( ci t i ng Town o f C a stle R o c k , C o lo . v. Go nz a les, 545 U
. S. 748, 756 (2005 ), Bd. of Rege nt s v. Rot h, 40 8 U .S. 56 4, 57 6-7 7 (1 97 2)). “L ibe rty i nt er es t s ca n a r i se fr o m two s o ur ce s: the Fe der alCo ns t i t ut i on o r st at e l aw . ” Thie l m an v. Le e an, 28 2 F .3d 47 8, 48 0 (7 th Cir
. 20 02) ( ci t i ng Shan go v. Juri ch , 681 F.2d 1 0 9 1 , 1 09 7 (7 th Cir
. 19 82)

. Concedi ng thatno W i sco nsi n st at ut e s er ves as th e s ou rc e o f h is a lleg ed libe rty i n tere sts , D om ka p u ts f or th two o the r the o r i e s t o ma k e h i s c a s e : tha tthe pl ea agr ee m entbetw een hi m sel fand the pro secut or gr ant ed hi m pr o t ec te d l ibe r tyi nt er es t s i n h o m e det en t i o n a nd H u b er p riv ileg es ; a n d tha t th e d u e p ro c es s c lau se itself provi des the bas i s f or hi s l iber ty int er esti n those pro gr am s. W e e a s i l yr ej e c tthe f o r mer a r g um ent
. Do mka h a d a choi ce in hi s pl ea agr eem ent ; he e l ect ed t o ser ve a t ot alo f 105 days with m ostof thatt i m e i n the H DP with H uber p riv ileg es rath er tha n a sh or ter s en ten c e o f7 5 d ay s a ll t oN o. 07

- 2984 7 be s er ved in j ai l , al so w i th H uber pri vi l ege s. The pl ea ag re em en t, D om ka cla im s, th erefor e g ave h im a “le gitim ate ent i t l em ent ” i n those pro gr am s which e nt i t l em entgives ri se to due proce ss re quir em ent s which were notm et h er e. W e a re u n ab le to follo w D om ka ’s “ log ic” tha t h is ne goti ati ons w ith the p rosecu tor ipso f acto c r ea t ed a c o nsti t ut i o na l l ibe r tyi nt er es ti n the pr o g r ams int o which h e w as su bseq ue ntly p laced a nd the three Sup rem e C ou rt ca se s Domka c i t es d o no thi ngt o b o l st er hi s ca se a s no ne of th em su p p or ts h is th eo r y. Sa nto bello v. New Y o rk , 40 4 U
. S. 25 7 (19 72), actual l y c ut s the o ther w ay, as Dom ka didrec eiv e th e s en ten c e h e h ad n eg otia ted ; Kent ucky D ept. of C o rrect i ons v. Thom ps on , 490 U .S. 45 4 (1 98 9), d ea lt w ith th e la n gu ag e re q u ire m e n ts tha t m u st b e c on tain ed w ithin a s t ate r egul at i on i n or der f or a st at e t o cre at e a pro t e c t e d l ib e r tyi n t e r e s t ; a nd Per ry v . Si nde r m ann , 408 U
. S. 593 ( 1972 ) , al so noto n poi nt , i nvol ved the due pro cess p ro tec tion of a p er so n al p ro p er ty in tere st in em p loy m en t. W i thout legi t i m at e s up port, Dom ka’ s a rg um enti s a non start er. Com m on sen se d ict ates tha t the distri ct court’ s so und a na l y si s o fthi s i ss ue , tha tthe pl ea a g r ee m en t betw een Dom ka an d the pro secut or had no b ear i ng o n the po st
- co nv i ct i o n a g r eem en tb etwee n Do m k a an d Po r t ag e, s ho ul d s t an d. Do m k a r ec eive d e xa ct l ywhathe b ar ga in ed fo r— th e o p p or tu n ity to se rv e a p or tion of h is t i m e under the H DP w ith H uber pri vi l ege s. W hatl at er ca m e t o pa ss b etwee n P o r t ag e Co untya nd Do m k a i nvo lvin g v iola tion s o f the H D P ag re em en t h a s n oth in g to do w i th the pl ea agr eem ent
. Dom ka m ustpro pose another sour ce f or hi s a l l ege d l iber ty int er est s. A nd he doe s. H i s a rg um ent thatthe due pro cess cl ause it self p rovide s th e basis for his l iberty i nterests i s m ore co m pel l i ng , a lbe i tf ar fr o m i r r efut ab l e. Af t er a l l , a s the8 N o. 07

- 2984

The S a n d in dec i s i on s o s i gni fi c ant ly lim i t ed i nm at es ’ pr o- 2 tec ted lib er ty i nter es ts thatw e have observed that in i ts w ake, the only protect ed liberty i nter es t r em aini ng f or i n m a te s m ay b e t h e l o ss o fg o o d tim e c re d its
. S ee Wagnerv. Hanks , 128 F. 3d 1 1 7 3 , 11 7 6 (7t h C ir . 19 9 7 ). S up r e m e C ou r th a s r e c o g ni z e d, “ [ a l tho ugh] p r i s o ne r s do notshed all const i t ut i o na l r i g ht s a tthe p r i s on gate,
. . . law ful incarc erati on bri ng s abou t th e n e c e s sary w ithd ra w al or lim itation of m an y p riv ile ge s a n d righ ts, a r etr ac t i o n j us t i fi ed bythe c o ns i der ati o ns un d er l y i ngo ur penal sy st em . ” Sa nd in v . Co nn er , 51 5 U.S
. 47 2, 48 5 (1 995) ( c i t a t i o ns a nd i nt e r na l qu o t a t i o n mar k s o mi t t e d)

. And as 2 the Courtm or e r ecent l y e m phasi zed, “[ a] br oad r ange of choi ces thatm i ghti nfr i nge c onst i t ut i onalr i ght s i n a fre e so ci etyf al l w i thi n the e xpe ct ed co ndi t i o ns o fc o nfi ne m en t o ftho s e wh o h a v e s uff e r e d a l a wfulc o nv i c t i o n. ” M cKune v. Lile , 536 U
. S. 24, 37 (2002). Ou r anal ysi s, then, m ust begin w i th the “i ni t i alquest i on [ of ] wh ether bei ng r em ove d fr om a hom e- d ete nt i on prog ra m i nt o j ai l i s a suffi ci ent l y l ar ge i ncre m ent alr eduction in fre ed om to be cla ss ified as a d e p r iva tion of libe rty und er the Sand in do ct r i ne , s i nc e, i fno t , [ Domka ] ha s no ri ght t o du e pr oce ss ofl aw . ” Paigev. H uds on , 34 1 F
. 3d 642, 643 ( 7th Cir

. 20 03) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed). The l aw i n a c ase su c h as thi s, wh er e the co nvi cti s no tt echni cal l y “ i m pri son ed ,” is s till ev olv in g. W h at is es t abl i shed i s thatan i nm at e o n parole has a l iber ty int er esti n re t ai ni ng that sta tu s, M o rrissey v. B rew er , 40 8 U.S
. 47 1 (1972) , and that th is rig h t ha s b ee n ex ten d ed to p re -p ar ole es , Y o ungv. Ha rper , 5 20 U. S
. 1 43 (1997 )

. Our r ec en to pi ni o n i n Paige v. H uds on b r o a de ne d thi s pr i nc i pl e s l i g htl y fur the r , f i nd

ing thatr em ovi ng a pro ba tio nerfr o m ho me de t e nti onN o. 07

- 2984 9

Although t he re i s no que s t i on t hat t he H DP aff or ded Dom ka 3 m ore freedom than he w ould hav e had i n pris on, w e agree that between th e c ons t ante l ec t ro ni c m oni t or i ng, t he f ac tt hathe was no tal l owed t o l ea ve hi s ho m e ex c eptt o go t o wor k or f or o ther pre- app roved reas ons, the frequent Sobriet or t es ts , et c., D o m ka can app ropriat el y be charact eri zed as a pris oner “s er vi ng a por t i on of[ hi s ] c onfi ne m en ti n a di f f er en tl oc at i on [ from pris on]. ” Portage County B r. at 42. W i t h r eg ar d t o Dom ka’ s Huber privileges , t he l ang uage of 4 the statu te itselfm ak es clear th at the y are in f act pri vil eges w hich m ay be w ithd raw n b y t h e cou rt“at any ti m e by ord er en te re d w ith o r w ith o u t n o tic e.” W isc . St a t. § 30 3 .08 (2 ). st atus fe l l so m ew here o n the depri vat i on s pect rum as g r ea t er tha n tha ta ts t ak e i n Sand in an d les s than thatat i ss ue i n Young , b utqua l i fi ed no ne the l es s as a “ su f fi ci en t re du ct i o n” i n fr e e do m t o b e de e med a “ de pr i v a t i o n of libe rty” req u irin g d u e p ro c es s. Paige , 34 1 F
. 3d at64 3. B u t w e a re n ot p re p ar ed to sa y th at Paigei s nec es sa rily cont ro l l i ng her e; the factthatD om ka w as nota proba t i oner b u t ins tea d a p ris on er se rv in g h is tim e o u tsid e th e jail re nd er s Paigedi s t i ng ui s hab l e . T he Co un tym ake s a val i d poi ntthatr evo ki ng pro bat i on a n d r et urni ng so m eone w ho a l re ady se rv ed hi s s en ten ce t o i ncarc er at i on, as was the s i t ua t i o n i n Paige , i s a rg uabl y a gr eat er l oss o f fr e e d o m th a n h a v i n gD o mk a s e r v e o u th i s r e ma i n i n gt i me ofco nfinem entin a “di f f er entl oca t i on. ” Because w e a gr ee 3 w i th the di st ri ctco urt ’ s ul t im ate det er m i nat i on that Dom ka w ai ved any du e pr oce ss prot ect i ons that m ay h av e b ee n req u ire d , see i n fra , we sa ve f o r a no the r da ythe narr ow qu esti on o f w hether a pri sone r— as opposed t o a proba t i oner , p ar ol ee or p re - paro l ee— has a l iber ty int er est i n a h o me d e t e n t i o n p r o g r a m. 410 N o. 07

- 2984

Dom ka at t em pt s t o e qua t e hi s s i t uat i on t o one in whi c h a 5 state acto r con d ition s th e r e c e i p t of a state b en efit “su ch as a l i quo r l i c en s e or an e nt er t ai nm en tpe rm i t ” o n a wai ver of c o n sti tu tio n a l ri g h ts. S ee Dom ka Br. at39
. Thi s an al ogy f alls short

. D om ka is a con vict ed pri soner , n ot a bu si ness m an at t em pt i ng t o o bt ai n s t at e l i c en s i ng. Dom ka has r ei t er at ed thi s und e r s t andi ng s eve ra l t i m es duri ng 6 t h e c o u r s e o f th is c a se . S ee , e. g. , D o m k a ’s d ep o sit io n (R . 21 ); (c on tinu ed

... ) B. Th e C ounty c om pel l i ngl y a rg ues thatDom ka w ai ved any due pro cess r i ght s he m ay have had and D om ka p ro vid es n o c on vin c in g s u p p or t fo r a c on trar y fin d in g. It i s withoutquest i on thatan ind i vi du alm ay w ai ve hi s o r h er p ro c ed u ra l d u e p ro c es s rig h ts. See , e . g. , D .H . O verm yer Co. v. Fr i ckCo. , 40 5 U.S
. 174, 18 5 ( 1972 )

. A co nst i t ut i onal wai ve r i s co ns i der ed t o b e va l i d i fi ti s know i nga nd vo lu n tary
. E.g
. , Jo hn son v. Z erbst , 3 04 U
. S. 458, 464 (1938 ) (a w a i v e r o r di na r i l y i s “ a n i nt e nti o na l r e l i nq ui s hme nto r ab an d on m en t of a kn ow n righ t or p riv ileg e” ). See a lso U nite d State s v. H il l , 25 2 F
. 3d 919,9 23 ( 7th Cir

. 20 01) (kn ow in g a n d in tellige n t w aiv er “ is d em on stra b le kn ow ledge ofthe ri ghtbei ng surre nd er ed and a f or m aldeci si on to forego tha t right”)

. 5 Th e l a ng ua g e i n the a g r e e men ttha tDo mka s i g ned w hi ch st at es that he coul d— and w oul d— be r em ove d fr om the H DP and the H uber prog ra m i fthe S obr i et or r egi st er ed a po si t i ve a l co ho l r ea di ngi s co m pl et el yuna m bi g uous. Dom ka agr ees thathe unders tood thati fhe v i ol at ed any condi t i on of the H DP , i ncl ud i ng the S obr i et or po r t i o n ofthe pr o g r am, he woul d b e r emov ed fr o m the prog ra m withoutnot i ce. Dom ka a l l ege s, however , that 6N o. 07

- 2984 11

(

. . . c o ntinu e d) Plai nti f f ’ s R es pon se t o D ef endan t’ s Prop osed Findings ofFact a n d C o n cl u sio n s o f L a w (R .33 at 12 , p a ra . 37 ). The re ar e ot he r s t at em en t t hat t he par t i es agr ee Of fi c er Bor s ki 7 m ade to D om ka at that m eet ing, i ncluding tel li ng him that he s houl d ri ns e hi s m outh wi t h water b efor e ea c h S obr i et or t es t ; an d t hathe c oul d go i nt o the ya rd t o fee d hi s an i m al s fro m 12

- 1 pm no t withs t andi ng thatt he PCSDH DP agr ee m en t s pec i fi ed thathe m u str em ai n i ns i de the ho us e ( noti n the yar d or on t he por c h) when he was no tatwork. Of fi ce r Bo r sk i m ad e cer t ain s t at ement s dur i ngthe i r J une 27 th mee t i ngwhi ch c o nst it ut ed o r almodi fi ca t i o ns t o the agr eem ent
. H e cl ai m s thatbec ause h e re l i ed on these st at ement s, a nd be ca us e the y m uddi ed ana l r ea dy ambi g uous c ont ra ct , i twas i m possibl e f or hi m t o be d eem ed as h av in g m ad e a “k n o w in g a n d inte llige n t” w aiv er of h is d u e p ro c es s rig h ts. D om ka ’s a rg u m en t hin ge s o n h is cl ai m th a t O f fi c e r B o r s k i t o l d h i m th a t i f a t a n y t i me the S o br i et o r t es t ed po si t i ve f or a l co ho l , s o m eo ne fr o m the j ai l would com e withi n tw o hours t o adm i ni st er ano ther t est
. I fthe se cond t estwas n eg ati ve f or al cohol , Dom ka w oul d then have a bl oo d t estf or an ul t i m at e det er m i nat i on ofal coholconsum pti on. T he C ounty di spute s thatOffi cer Borsk i ev er sa i d thi s. 7 Bec au se thi s i s a m o t i o n f or s um m ar yj udg m en t , the fac ts m u st b e c on sid er ed in th e ligh t m os t fav or ab le to Dom ka, the non- m ovi ng par ty, and am b igu i t i es m ustbe re so lve d in h is fa vo r. See , e . g. , P a yn e v. P a uley , 337 F. 3d 767, 77 3 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3)

. I n sup p ortofhi s o ppo si t i o n t o the C ou n ty’s m otion , i t is en tirely a p p ro p ria te for D om ka to re ly h er e o n h is ow n testim on y to th e ex ten t it is ad m iss ible u n d er the Fe d er al R u les of E vid en c e. See i d. at77 1- 73.12 N o. 07

- 2984

For t hi s r ea s on, Dom ka’ s ar g u m en ts thatt hathe di d not 8 ac t ual l y ha ve any al c oho l wh i l e on i n the HD P, t hatt he Sobriet or’ s posit ive r es ult w as in f acta “f als e posi ti ve” and that the Sobriet or w as unreliable ( ass um ing D om ka is even quali fie d to add res s thi s is sue) are im m ater ial here

. Th e re f or e , f o r p ur po s e s o fthi s a pp e a l we mus ta c c e pt Dom ka’ s v er si on o fth e c onver sat i on he had w i th Offi cer Borsk i o n J une 27 re gar ding re t est i ng. Bute ve n ac ce pt i ngDo m k a’ s ve r si o n o fthe c o nv er sa t i o n, w e r em ai n dis i ncl i ned t o accepthi s a rg um en t. The cl ear st at emento fthe s i g ne d, wri t t ena g r ee m en ttha t“ [ a] ny alc oh ol re ad in g on the Sob rie tor w ill res u lt in an im m ed iat e r emov alfr o m HDP an d you wi l l l o se y o ur HDP an d Hub e r P r i v i l e g e s ” do e s n o tp r e di c a t e r e mov a l fr o m HDP an d o fHube r on Do m k a ac t ua l l yc o ns um i nga l co ho l , b ut onl y on a posi t i ve So bri eto r re ading

. Offi cer B orski’ s 8 com m entabo utr et est i ng r enders the agre em entno l ess u n am b i g u o u s, an d the C ou n ty’s ca se is sig n ifica n tly but t re sse d by the f actthatDom ka has a dm i t t ed ove r an d ov er th at h e u n d er sto od th at if he vio late d an y c on d it i o n o fthe HDP, i nc l udi ngthe Sob riet o r po r t i o n o fthe pr o g r am, he woul d b e rem ove d fr o m the pr o g r am wi thou t no tice
. See n .6, sup ra .
C. D om ka w ou ld h av e th is C ou rt find h is w a i v e r inv alid bec ause , he c l ai m s, the PCS DH S P c o ns t i t ut es a n un en for c ea b le “ c on trac t of ad h es ion ,” a “ tak e it or lea ve it” ag r ee m en tpr es en t ed bythe Cou nty, the pa r tywi th the p ow er , w itho u t th e op p or tu n ity for D om ka to h av e n eg otiat ed i t s t er m s. Do m k a’ s f ai l ur e t o ha ve made thi s ar g u-N o. 07

- 2984 13

Thi s i s t he s o n ot withs t and i ng Dom ka’ s c ur re ntas s er t i on 9 th a t “ [t]h e m es sa g e o f O verm yer , F u entes an d their p ro g en y is thata non- negotiable adhesio n contract
... can never be se en a s k n o w in g , in te lli g en t a n d , mos t i mpo r t a nt , vol unt ar y. ” Dom ka B r. a t 4 6 (em p h a sis ad d ed ). m entin th e c ourtbel ow, how eve r, pre vent s us fro m now consi deri ng i t
. “I ti s a well

- set t l ed rul e thata party o pp osi ng a sum m ar y j ud gm entm ot i on m usti nfo rm th e t ri al j ud ge o f the reason s, legal or f actua l, w hy sum m ary j udg m en ts ho ul d no tb e en t er ed. I fi tdo es not do s o , a nd los es th e m otion , it c an n ot ra ise su c h re as on s on a p p ea l.” Liberles v . Co un ty o

f C o o k, 709 F. 2d 1122 , 11 26 ( 7th Cir
. 19 83) ( c i ta tion s o m itted ). See a lso Ec o n o my F o l d i ngBo x C o rp . v. Anch orFroze n F oods Corp. , 51 5 F. 3d 718, 72 0 ( 7th Cir

. 20 08) ( “i ti s a xiom ati c tha ta n i ss ue no tfi r stpr es en t ed t o the d istri ct court m ay not be raised be fore the ap p ell ate court as a g r o und f o r r ev er sa l ” ( ci t ati o ns and i nt er na l quo t ati o ns om i t t ed))

. Dom ka at t em pts t o ski rt thi s wai ver r ule by cl ai m i ng thatal though he m ay nothave used the speci fic t er m i no l o g yb el o w, the e ss en ce o fthe a r g um en the put f or th i n the d i st ri ctcourtis consi st entw i th thi s co nt ra cto f ad h es ion the or y. H e re fer s u s t o th e “ lon g s ec tion [in h is briefbel ow] a rg uingthatthe al l ege d w ai ver was not kn ow ing, intel li gen t an d volun tary
... ” (Dom ka R ep ly B r. at 11 ) in p u rp or ted su p p or t. T h er e a re se ve ra l flaw s w ith this argu m en t. Fi rst an d t ell ing, D om ka’s d ist r ict court bri efdoes notvi gor ousl y a rg ue thatthe waiv er was i nv o l unt ar y but f o cus es i ns t ea d o n i t no t be i ng know i ng and i nt el l i gent
. R. 31. M or eov er , al though o ur e xam i na- 9 tion of D om ka ’s b ri e fb e low d oe s re ve al tw o in sta n c es in whi ch Do m k a us ed la ng ua g e ab o utdi spa r at e ba r g aini ng p ow er (one of w hich also m a k e s r e feren ce to a “stand ard14 N o. 07

- 2984

D om ka a rg u ed below ( 1) thatblack l ett er l aw requi res 10 am b igu ities to b e con stru ed ag ain st the d raf t er “p articu larly wher e t he re i s s ubs t ant i al dis par i t y ofpower be t ween t he par t i es , an d t he c ont ra c ti s on a s t an d ard for m s uppl i ed by t he draft er”, ci ti ng a W is consi n sta te c a se ( R
. 31 at 21) ; and (2) that “[ u] nder t he circ um s t anc es , wher e Dom ka was an i nm at e and Bors ki was an offi c er with a ut hor i t y ove r hi m , it w as re as onabl e f or Dom ka t o r el y upon Bor s ki ’ s ve rba l e xpl ana t i on and a sse rt io n s” (R .31 at 24 , n.5 ). Even i fwe a gr ee d t hatDom ka di d putf orth bel ow t he ge n- 11 eral the ory thathis i nabili ty t o n egoti ate the contrac t r endered i tunf ai r, we c oul d notno w p ro p erl y c ons i der hi s c ont ra c tof a d h es io n ar g u m en t. S ee Li b ertyvi l l e D at sun Sal es , Inc. v. Ni ss an M oto r C orp. , 77 6 F .2d 735 , 73 7 (7th C ir. 19 85 ) (w he re a p arty raises a sp ecific arg u m en t f or the first ti m e on ap p eal, it is w aiv ed ev en tho u g h t h e “g en era l iss u e” w as b efore th e d istr ic t c o u rt ) (co lle ct in g ca se s). form ”), hi s ar g um en ti n the di str i ctc o ur tw as al l a bo ut

10 Borsk i ’ s a l l ege d “verbaladdend a” cre at i ng am bi gui t i es co nc erning th e righ ts he w a ived such that h is wai ver c ou ld notbe deem ed knowing and i nt el l i gent
. Even the m ost l ibe r al r ea di ng ca nno t fi nd bur i ed wi thi n thi s argu m en t the o ne D om ka i s no w es pousi ng— nam el y, thatthe entire agre e m e nt ( i ncl ud i ng th e w ai ver ) i s unenf or ceabl e a s a co nt r ac to fa dhe si o n. 1 1 He r e , wh e r e no “ j ur i s di c t i o na l q ue s t i o ns a r e p r e s e nt e d” an d w e a re n ot p re se n te d w ith a n “e x c ep tion al c as e[] [in w hi ch] j ust i ce dem ands m or e fl exibi l i ty, ” Stern v. U
. S. G ypsum , Inc
. , 5 47F
. 2d 13 29 , 1 33 3 ( 7th Ci r . 1 97 7) , we fi nd n o jus tifica tion to d ep ar t from t h e lo n g-s tan d in g ru leN o. 07

- 2984 15

D om k a also arg u es tha t the d istrict co u rt’ s d ecision to d ism iss 12 the act ion base d on a waiver m akes it “und ers tandab le ” that th e p a rt ie s w o u ld p u t th e w a iv er issu e o n “c en te r st a g e n o w .” That m ay w el l be the c ase , but itdoes not m ean t hat this Cou rt c a n , o r s h o u l d, c o n s i de r a n a r g u me n th e d i d n o tr a i s e b e l o w. ag ain st c on sid er in g n ew arg u m en ts on ap p ea l. “For ‘ [t ]o 12 re ve rs e th e d istric t cou rt on g ro u n d s n ot p re se n ted to it w oul d und er m i ne the es sent i al funct i on o fthe di st ri ct cour t
. ’ ” Economy Fol di ng Box , 51 5 F
. 3d at72 0 ( q uot i ng B o yers v. Texaco Ref. & M ktg., Inc. , 848 F. 2d 809, 81 2 (7 th C ir. 19 88 ) )

. Acco r di ng l y , we do notc o ns i der Do m k a’ s co ntrac t of ad h es ion arg u m en t.

D. L as tly, w e a d d re ss D om ka ’s c laim tha t th e C ou n ty vi ol a t e d h i s du e p r o c e s s b yf a i l i ngt o s e e ka c o ur to r der f or the suspensi on o fhi s Hu berpri vi l ege s a ft er he was r ei m pri sone d. The H uber st at ut e s t at es that“[ a] ny per son sent enced t o a co untyj ai l f or a cri m e . . . m ay be g ra nt ed the pr i vi l eg e o fl ea vi ngthe j ai l dur i ngnecessary a nd re a s o nab l e h o ur s ” f o r v a r i o us wo r ka nd me di c a l r el a t e d p u r p o s e s . Wi s . S t a t
. § 3 0 3
. 0 8 ( 1 )

. P u r s u a n tt o th e s a me sta tu te, “[t]h e s h er iff m ay refu se to p er m it th e p ris on er to exer ci se the pri sone r’ s privi l ege t o l eav e the j ai l as pro vi ded i n sub. ( 1) f or nott o exceed 5 days f or any bre ach o f d isc ip lin e o r oth er vio l a tion of j ail re gu lation s.” W is. Stat. § 303.08(10). Dom ka has e st abl i shed thatal th ou gh i twas Por t age C o u n ty ’s p ra c tice to se ek a c ou rt ord er rev ok in g a n ind ivi du al ’ s Hu ber pri vi l ege s f or60 days w hen i tt er m in at ed hi s o r h e r H D P p a r t i c i p a t i o n , n o s u c h r e q u e s tw a s ma de16 N o. 07

- 2984 i n hi s ca se . T h e County’ s r esponse i s thatas Dom ka had onl y 4 0 days r em ai ni ng t o serve , th e 60 day co urtr evo cation w as u n n ec es sa ry . W e n ee d n ot as se ss th e m er its of th is part i cul ar di spute
. Por t age County ’ s depart ure i n thi s ca se f ro m i t s u s ua l c o ur s e o fa c t i o n maywe l l p r o v i de Dom ka w ith a n a rg u m en t th at th e C ou n ty faile d to co m p ly w ith th e s tatu te. H ow ev er , th is is n o t th e p ro p er ve n u e in w hi ch, nor i s a co nst i t ut i onalcl ai m the pro per vehi cl e by w hi ch, t o m ake thatcl ai m . “F edera l j ud ges do notenf or ce sta te-c re ate d p ro c ed u re s in th e n am e o f the C on stitu tion ,” Gord on v. D ege l m ann , 29 F. 3d 29 5, 301 ( 7th Cir

. 19 94) (c itation om itted ), a n d a failu re to co m p ly w ith s tate p rocedur alr ul es do es no tv i o l at e the fede r alc o ns t i t ut i o n, s e eH i ckey v . O ’ Bannon, 28 7 F
. 3d 65 6, 65 8 (7 th Cir

. 20 02) an d c as es c i t ed the r ein.
III. F o r the f ore g o i ngr ea so ns , the di str i ctc o ur t ’ s j udg m en t i s A FFI RMED .

USCA- 02- C- 0072

— 4- 24- 08