The Board defers decision of this claim to a later date in order to obtain additional information from the parties.
4. Joseph May. The Board’s conclusion for Mx. May’s claim for innocent convict compensation will be issued in a separate decision.
5. Charles Bliesner of Green Bay, Wisconsin claims $219.83 for the value of a television allegedly damaged due to DOC staff negligence. Bliesner alleges to have closed and locked his cell upon departing for evening medications, which he claims is the procedure required by the institution rule book. He alleges that DOC staff unlocked his cell prior to his return and looked away to allow inmate Kratz to enter and damage his television. Bliesner alleges the incident is captured on video and that inmate Kratz admitted to damaging the television. In the event an inmate’s cell is left open, Bliesner claims it is DOC’s responsibility to close and lock it.
DOC believes there is no evidence of staff negligence and recommends denial of this claim. Bliesner filed a complaint via the Inmate Complaint Review System (ICRS), which was ultimately dismissed as the review found no staff involvement in damage to the television. DOC notes that Bliesner’s ICRS complaint did not allege staff allowed or assisted inmate Kratz into his cell, or that staff looked away while inmate Kratz damaged the television, which he now claims. Upon DOC’s review, there was video evidence of inmate Kratz entering Bliesner’s cell, however, staff did not open the cell for him specifically, or look away to allow entrance or damage. DOC explains it is the inmate’s responsibility to close the cell door upon departure. Doors are then opened in groups, by one staff who has access to that functionality. Due to the number of inmates in the cell hall and receiving medications, staff could not feasibly wait to open individual cell doors when each inmate returns. DOC indicates that inmate Kratz received a conduct report for entering Bliesner’s cell but he did not admit to damaging the television and DOC found no actual evidence of him doing so.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
6. Joshua Flynn of Lake Tomahawk, Wisconsin claims $1,663.13 for money deducted from his inmate account by DOC. Flynn’s 2020 Judgment of Conviction (JOC) stated that all fines, court costs, fees, and surcharges were to be “made payable to the agent,” which Flynn interpreted as collected during extended supervision, however, DOC began deducting the funds during his incarceration. Flynn requested clarification from the sentencing court, which responded that “the judgment of conviction clearly indicates that fines, costs, other fees, victim witness surcharge and DNR surcharge are all to be collected while you are on extended supervision.” DOC received this clarification from the court but continued deducting the money from Flynn’s account. Flynn filed several inmate complaints about the deductions, but DOC continued the deductions. Flynn filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Dane County Circuit Court, which found that “DOC does not have the authority to act against the express orders of the circuit court, even though the order contradicts DOC’s statutory authority.” DOC did not appeal the ruling and stopped the deductions.
Flynn alleges that numerous court cases support his position that DOC does not have the authority to collect money contrary to the language in a JOC. Flynn believes DOC deliberately ignores these decisions and deducts funds contrary to court orders. Flynn alleges that he would not be unjustly enriched by a Claims Board award because his obligations could be reset to the original amounts, which he would owe during extended supervision. Flynn also requests reimbursement for costs associated with his certiorari action, which he believes was only necessary due to DOC’s actions.
DOC states that it is statutorily obligated to collect victim/witness and DNA surcharges from inmates. DOC notes that the deductions applied to Flynn’s fines reduced his outstanding obligations and were therefore used for his benefit. Although eventually overruled by Dane County Circuit Court, DOC alleges that it was not negligent in deducting the funds pursuant to DOC’s established policy and statutory authority. DOC stopped the deductions when ordered to do so by the court. DOC believes the court cases cited by Flynn involve circumstances that are not relevant to this claim. DOC believes there is no equitable basis for paying the claim and that reimbursing Flynn money that has already been used for his benefit would constitute unjust enrichment. Dane Co Circuit Court did not award costs to Flynn and therefore DOC believes his request for costs related his certiorari action should also be denied.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles. (Members Hanson and Felzkowski dissenting.)
7. De’Angelo Wallace of Green Bay, Wisconsin claims $175.65 for the value of a television allegedly damaged by DOC staff during a cell search. Officer Vang conducted a search of Wallace’s cell on September 26, 2021. Wallace alleges that his television worked “perfectly fine” prior to the search, but he discovered damage immediately after. Wallace indicates he had photographs on his television of his children to provide motivation, and that the photographs were not there to cover any existing damage. He further alleges there was a video camera in front of his cell that would provide evidence of Officer Vang damaging his television.
DOC believes there is no evidence of negligence by DOC staff and recommends denial of this claim. DOC reviewed the matter via the Inmate Complaint Review System (“ICRS”) and found no evidence that staff damaged Wallace’s television. DOC notes this was a random cell search and Officer Vang completed an incident report afterward. The incident report noted the television was turned on and working when Officer Vang both entered and exited the cell, and that there were photographs covering the left side of the screen. There was no available video footage of the incident, which, if available, would have been reviewed as part of the ICRS process. DOC notes that Wallace still has possession of the television (at least at the time he filed his claim with the Claims Board) and that the left side of the screen is damaged, but it turns on and the rest of the screen works. DOC believes the television was damaged prior to Officer Vang’s search and the damage was covered by photographs.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
The Board concludes:
That decision of the following claim is deferred to a later date:
Mercy Health Systems and MercyCare Insurance Company
That the following identified claims are denied:
JRT Top Notch Roofs
Walsh Construction
Charles Bliesner
Joshua Flynn
De’Angelo Wallace
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 9th day of August, 2022.
COREY FINKELMEYER
Chair, Representative of the Attorney General
ANNE L. HANSON
Secretary, Representative of the Secretary of Administration
MARY FELZKOWSKI
Senate Finance Committee
TERRY KATSMA
Assembly Finance Committee
RYAN NILSESTUEN
Representative of the Governor
