Werner v. Wall
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16223
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Patrick Werner, a Wisconsin SBN (repeat sex-offender) prisoner, reached his mandatory release date on March 21, 2010 but lacked an DOC‑approved residence because of overlapping state supervision rules and Brown County residency ordinances.
- Wisconsin DOC Directive AD 02‑10 (2002) allowed SBN offenders lacking approved housing to be released during daytime hours to seek housing with a chaperone and GPS monitoring but detained in county jail overnight to "prevent a violation."
- Werner was detained under AD 02‑10 (and related supervision holds) intermittently from March 2010 until he obtained an approved residence and moved in on July 1, 2011; he later had separate revocations for other violations.
- Werner sued DOC officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging continued detention past his mandatory release violated the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause; he sought damages and injunctive relief.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on qualified immunity grounds as to the individual‑capacity claims and held official‑capacity injunctive claims moot; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, focusing on qualified immunity because the relevant constitutional contours were not clearly established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether detaining Werner past his mandatory release date under AD 02‑10 violated constitutional rights (Eighth Amendment / Fourteenth Amendment) | Werner: continued custody beyond mandatory release and substantial overnight jail detention deprived liberty without due process and/or amounted to cruel and unusual punishment | Defendants: detention was authorized to "prevent a possible violation," implemented under DOC authority and consistent with state practice and law; any deprivation was not clearly unconstitutional | Court avoided definitive ruling on the constitutional standard and did not decide the merits; proceeded to qualified immunity inquiry |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for detaining Werner under AD 02‑10 | Werner: defendants should have known continued detention was unlawful based on Wisconsin decisions (Woods, Olson, Allen) | Defendants: state precedent was not sufficiently clear; Riesch and ambiguous doctrinal authority left room for reasonable disagreement | Held: defendants entitled to qualified immunity because law was not "clearly established" that AD 02‑10 was unconstitutional |
| Whether state precedents (Woods, Olson, Allen) clearly prohibited continued custody absent court process | Werner: those cases established that inmates must be released on mandatory release dates even if housing is unavailable | Defendants: Wisconsin Supreme Court’s later decision in Riesch created uncertainty by recognizing DOC discretion where parolees immediately violate conditions | Held: Olson/Allen did not place the directive’s permissibility "beyond debate" in light of Riesch and doctrinal uncertainty |
| Whether official‑capacity injunctive claim against AD 02‑10 remained justiciable | Werner: policy unconstitutional as applied; sought injunctive relief | Defendants: AD 02‑10 was later replaced (AD 15‑12), and Werner was no longer subject to it | Held: Official‑capacity injunctive claims were moot (not reached on merits) |
Key Cases Cited
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (framework for qualified immunity analysis)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (district courts may exercise discretion in order of qualified immunity prongs)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (parole revocation requires due process protections)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (procedural protections for probation/parole revocation)
- McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 407 U.S. 245 (continued detention beyond sentence implicates Fourteenth Amendment)
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly established law standard for qualified immunity)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (substantive due process standards for detainees informing analysis)
- Campbell v. Peters, 256 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. precedent on prolonged incarceration and deliberate indifference)
- State ex rel. Olson v. Litscher, 233 Wis.2d 685 (608 N.W.2d 425) (Wis. Ct. App. holding inmate must be released on mandatory date despite lack of residence)
- Allen v. Guerrero, 276 Wis.2d 679 (688 N.W.2d 673) (Wis. Ct. App. holding continued detention beyond release date violated rights and was clearly established)
- State ex rel. Riesch v. Schwarz, 278 Wis.2d 24 (692 N.W.2d 219) (Wis. Sup. Ct. distinguishing Olson/Allen and endorsing DOC discretion where parolee immediately and deliberately violates conditions)