Schepers v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18189
7th Cir.2012Background
- Indiana maintains a public Sex and Violent Offender Registry accessible online, listing offenders’ photos, addresses, demographics, and offenses; some may be labeled sexually violent predators with additional restrictions.
- A class of registrants sued the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) for failing to provide any mechanism to correct registry errors, arguing due process was violated.
- DOC created a new policy—the Sex and Violent Offender Registry Appeal Process—providing notice and an appeal to the director for prisoners, but it applies only to incarcerated individuals, not those released or never incarcerated.
- Schepers, a registrant who had been misclassified as a sexually violent predator, sought correction; his attempts through informal channels were unsuccessful, prompting the § 1983 suit.
- District court granted summary judgment to DOC, finding the new policy sufficient, but the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding the process was inadequate for a large class (non-incarcerated registrants).
- DOC is ultimately responsible under Indiana law for maintaining and publishing the registry, including decisions that affect classification and the information that appears on the registry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires a correction mechanism for registry errors | Schepers contends mislabeling violates liberty interests and necessitates process | DOC argues current process suffices and errors are rare | Yes; due process requires a mechanism for correcting errors for at least some registrants |
| Whether DOC is the proper defendant obligated to provide process | DOC has ultimate responsibility for registry accuracy and publication | Sheriff’s Association handles publication; DOC allegedly distant | DOC is responsible and must provide process; publication arrangement does not absolve DOC |
| Whether the DOC’s 30-day ‘deemed denied’ appeal is constitutionally adequate | No meaningful opportunity to be heard; process must be real and timely | Appeal system exists; deemed denial is efficient | No; the process is inadequate and must be meaningfully reviewable; remand for development |
| Whether Mathews v. Eldridge factors support current procedures | Private interest in accurate registry is significant and stigma plus harms are real | Procedural safeguards balance interests and burdens | Procedures inadequate under Mathews; more protective process required |
| Whether state post-deprivation remedies suffice | Remedies available are insufficient for registry errors | Post-deprivation remedies exist | Insufficient; pre-deprivation process or adequate post-deprivation review needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (liberty interest requires due process when reputation injury alters legal status)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor test for due-process protections)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (pre-deprivation vs post-deprivation remedies)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982) (established procedure supports pre-deprivation process)
- Dupuy v. Samuels, 397 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2005) (flexible due-process protections; substantial post-deprivation process may suffice)