|
STATE
OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
IV |
|
|
|
State
of Wisconsin ex rel. James R. Schultz, ����������������������� Petitioner-Respondent, ����������� v. Gerald Berge and Tom
Gozinske, ����������������������� Respondents-Appellants. |
|
|||
ERRATA SHEET
Marilyn L. Graves
Clerk of Court of Appeals
P.O. Box 1688
Madison, WI�� 53701-1688
Court of Appeals District I
633 W. Wisconsin Ave., #1400
Milwaukee, WI�� 53203-1918
Court of Appeals District III
740 Third Street
Wausau, WI�� 54403-5784
Jennifer Krapf
Administrative Assistant
119 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Madison, WI� 53703
Peg Carlson
Chief Staff Attorney
119 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Madison, WI� 53703
Court of Appeals District II
2727 N. Grandview Blvd.
Waukesha, WI�� 53188-1672
Court of Appeals District IV
119 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Madison, WI� 53703
Hon. Robert R Pekowsky
Dane County, City-County Bldg
210 M L King, Jr Blvd
Madison, WI� 53709
Judith Coleman, Trial Court Clerk
Dane County, City-County Bldg
210 M L King, Jr Blvd
Madison, WI� 53709
James R. Schultz� 8151
Fox Lake Corr. Inst.
P.O. Box 147
Fox Lake, WI 53933-0147
Robert M. Hunter
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707
����������������������� PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached page two is to be substituted for page two in the above-captioned opinion which was released on April 17, 1997.
����������������������� Dated this 16th day of May, 1997.
court erred in concluding that principles of equitable estoppel may be applied to enjoin enforcement of the rule, we reverse the order.[1]��
����������������������� The facts are not in dispute.� In 1987, while incarcerated at a different institution, Schultz acquired a typewriter with a one-page memory or text-storing capacity.� He was transferred to Fox Lake in December 1994, and at some time he received an updated version of DOC 309, Internal Management Procedure # 1-B, which provides,� �Typewriters may not have a memory bank or be capable of storing text.�� A little over a month later, the typewriter was damaged during a routine search of Schultz's cell, and correctional officers agreed to pay Schultz its value, depositing $70 in his inmate account.� Schultz then ordered a new typewriter, with similar text-storing capabilities, from a mail-order company.� When the new machine was delivered, Fox Lake staff determined that it was prohibited by IMP #1-B and notified Schultz that it would not be delivered to him.
����������������������� Schultz filed an inmate complaint, and
the prison complaint officer recommended dismissal on grounds that the
�institution[�]s obligation to ... Schultz was satisfied and he was made whole
when he agreed to and accepted [the] $70.00 for his loss....� FLCI[�s] ... reports adequately detail the
controlling regulations and all inmates ... are required to follow them.�� Schultz appealed to the warden, who
confirmed the complaint officer�s decision.�
Schultz exhausted his administrative remedies and petitioned the
trial court for a writ of certiorari.[2]� Acknowledging that the rule applied to
���������� �[1]� Schultz has moved to summarily dismiss the appeal under � 809.21, Stats.� For reasons stated in this opinion, the motion is denied.
[2]� Schultz originally filed a small claims action for return of the typewriter.� After several changes of venue, the action was converted to a petition for certiorari.� Appellants suggest that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider Schultz's petition because it was not served on them until after the time for initiating such an action had expired.� Because pro se prisoners �in some circumstances deserve some leniency� in complying with procedural requirements, Waushara County v. Graf, 166 Wis.2d 442, 451, 480 N.W.2d 16, 19 (1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 894 (1992), we consider Schultz�s petition to have been timely filed.