Garrity v. Fiedler, 92-C-0939.
| Decision Date | 13 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-C-0939.,92-C-0939. |
| Parties | Daniel J. GARRITY, Petitioner, v. Patrick FIEDLER, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
Steve Weiss, Asst. State Public Defender, Public Defender's Office, Madison, WI, for plaintiff.
Mary V. Bowman, Office of the Atty. Gen., Madison, WI, for defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Daniel J. Garrity's ("Garrity") petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the following reasons, the petition is denied.
The facts are few and undisputed. On August 2, 1988, Garrity was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to 9 years in the state penitentiary. While in prison, Garrity was caught passing a note to a visitor in violation of prison rules. The note also solicited the commission of a burglary, which is a felony. A prison conduct report was filed and prison officials conducted an administrative disciplinary hearing. As a result of the hearing, Garrity received 6 days in segregation and 180 days in program segregation. Under Wisconsin law, the segregation orders had the effect of extending Garrity's mandatory release date by 3 months. In addition, Garrity was charged in state court for solicitation to commit burglary. Garrity pled guilty to the solicitation charge and was sentenced to 3 additional years in prison. Garrity's petition attacks this second conviction on double jeopardy grounds. He argues that the administrative segregation orders followed by the 3-year felony sentence constitute multiple punishments for the same offense.
The 5th Amendment's prohibition against double jeopardy "protects against three distinct abuses: a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and multiple punishments for the same offense." U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 439, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 1897, 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989). The third protection is at issue here. Until recently, there could be little question that the 5th Amendment "does not bar a criminal prosecution arising from the same conduct that led to the imposition of disciplinary measures by prison authorities." See, Mott v. Texas, 846 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Tex.Ct.App. 1992); see also, U.S. v. Rising, 867 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir.1989) and cases cited therein; State v. Fonder, 162 Wis.2d 591, 596-97, 469 N.W.2d 922 (Ct.App.1991) and cases cited therein. Wisconsin courts have been particularly vocal on the issue, consistently holding that prison disciplinary measures do not constitute "punishment" — for double jeopardy purposes — because their "primary" purpose is not punitive. See generally, State v. Killebrew, 115 Wis.2d 243, 340 N.W.2d 470 (1983); State v. Fonder, 162 Wis.2d 591, 469 N.W.2d 922 (Ct.App.1991); State v. Quiroz, 149 Wis.2d 691, 439 N.W.2d 621 (Ct.App.1989).
Garrity argues that this firmly established line of precedent has been implicitly overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989), and more specifically, dicta from that opinion. Halper, which was not a prison discipline case, involved a medical service manager who filed a substantial number of fraudulent Medicare reimbursement claims. He was first convicted under the criminal false-claims act and sentenced to 2 years in prison. The Government then brought an action under the civil false-claims act, seeking a civil penalty and damages. Although the fraud at issue resulted in overpayments totalling only $585.00, the Government sought civil damages in the amount of $130,000.00. The district court ruled that the discrepancy between the overpayments at issue and the damages sought was so large that it exceeded what was reasonably necessary to compensate the Government and therefore constituted a second "punishment" for the same offense. The Supreme Court in upholding this decision suggested, in dicta relied upon by Garrity, that if a civil penalty serves any punitive purpose, i.e., deterrence or retribution, in addition to other non-punitive purposes, the sanction is considered a "punishment" for double jeopardy purposes:
These goals are familiar. We have held in other contexts that punishment serves the twin aims of retribution and deterrence. Furthermore, "retribution and deterrence are not legitimate nonpunitive governmental objectives." From these premises, it follows that a civil sanction that cannot fairly be said solely to serve a remedial purpose, but rather can only be explained as also serving either retributive or deterrent purposes, is punishment, as we have come to understand the term.
Halper, 490 U.S. at 448, 109 S.Ct. at 1902. (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.) The very next sentence, however, which constitutes the central holding of the decision, states that a civil sanction is "punishment" only if it serves no purpose other than deterrence or retribution:
We therefore hold that under the Double Jeopardy Clause a defendant who already has been punished in a criminal pr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hickam
...e.g., Dept. of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767, 114 S.Ct. 1937, 1946-47, 128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994); Garrity v. Fiedler, 850 F.Supp. 777, 778-79 (E.D.Wis.1994); State v. Funke, 531 N.W.2d 124, 126-27 (Iowa 1995); State v. Savard, 659 A.2d 1265, 1268 (Me.1995); State v. Strong, 1......
-
Hernandez v. State
...dealing with facts and issues wholly unrelated to the present dispute, could be read to require a different result." Garrity v. Fiedler, 850 F.Supp. 777, 779 (E.D.Wis.), aff'd, 41 F.3d 1150 (7th Cir.1994) (distinguishing Halper ). The issue then becomes, to use Halper 's proviso, whether th......
-
Garrity v. Fiedler
...then brought this writ of habeas corpus in the district court, which also rejected his double jeopardy challenge. Garrity v. Fiedler, 850 F.Supp. 777 (E.D.Wis.1994). II. We review a district court's double jeopardy analysis de novo. United States v. Furlett, 974 F.2d 839, 842 (7th Cir.1992)......
-
Ex parte Hernandez
...with facts and issues wholly unrelated to the present dispute, could be read to require a different result." Garrity v. Fiedler, 850 F.Supp. 777, at 779 (E.D.Wis.1994). The San Antonio Court then applied Halper 's test to determine if the disciplinary sanctions served only as a "deterrent o......
-
Practical Aspects of the Law of Misuse: Misuse in the Litigation Context
...of patent misuse is closely related to the analysis of tying arrangements in antitrust law.”). 153. See In re Recombinant DNA Tech. , 850 F. Supp. at 777. See also Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Commun. Tech. Holdings Ltd., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26824, at *20 (D. Del. 2017) (noting that a m......