Ronald Perrault v. Wisconsin Department of Correc, et al
Filing
Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. 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. Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge; Ann Claire Williams, Circuit Judge and Diane S. Sykes, Circuit Judge. [6784957-1] [6784957] [16-1189]
Case: 16-1189
Document: 30
Filed: 09/22/2016
Pages: 3
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
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).
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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?