Richards v. Cullen

Decision Date19 October 1989
Docket NumberNo. 89-0622,89-0622
Citation152 Wis.2d 710,449 N.W.2d 318
PartiesHarlan RICHARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tim CULLEN, Secretary, Department of Health and Social Services, Defendant-Respondent.
CourtWisconsin Court of Appeals

Harlan Richards, pro se.

Donald J. Hanaway, Atty. Gen., with Jennifer D. Ryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, on a brief, for defendant-respondent.

Before EICH, C.J., GARTZKE, P.J., and SUNDBY, J.

EICH, Chief Judge.

Harlan Richards appeals from an order dismissing his action challenging Wis.Adm.Code, sec. HSS 309.39(1)(a)1, which defines a "housing emergency" within Wisconsin prisons.The issue is whether Richards has standing to challenge the rule.We believe he does not, and we therefore affirm the order.

Richards, an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution, commenced a declaratory judgment action to invalidate the rule, which he claims illegally allows "double celling" of prisoners when the prisons are overcrowded.The rule was adopted pursuant to sec. 46.054(3), Stats., which states that the prison population limits at Waupun "may be exceeded if an emergency exists" and directs the Department of Health and Social Services to promulgate a rule defining "emergency."

Other code provisions declare that, except where an institutional housing emergency exists, the number of inmates in a cell is limited to "no more than the number for which the room was designed."Wis.Adm.Code, sec. HSS 309.39(3).In the challenged rule, sec. HSS 309.39(1)(a)1, the department defines a housing emergency as existing when "[t]he number of inmates exceeds the [statutory] bed capacity of any [Wisconsin prison]."The trial court held that Richards lacked standing to challenge the rule because it did not interfere with or impair his legal rights, a necessary element of a cause of action for declaratory relief under sec. 227.40(1), Stats.

A litigant's standing to sue is a question of law which we review without deference to the trial court's decision.Wis. Senate v. Thompson, 144 Wis.2d 429, 436, 424 N.W.2d 385, 387(1988).As we have noted, sec. 227.40(1), Stats., provides that one has standing to challenge a rule if it "interferes with or impairs, or threatens to interfere with or impair, [his or her] legal rights and privileges...."

Richards argues that he has a "right not to be subjected to ... overcrowded conditions" under sec. 46.054, Stats., and that the department's rule impairs that right.We have previously held that prison administrative rules are not enacted for the benefit of individual inmates and do not create in them any liberty or property interests.State ex rel. Staples v. Young, 142 Wis.2d 348, 359-60, 418 N.W.2d 333, 338(Ct.App.1987).Section 46.054 does not give Richards a legal right to be free from prison overcrowding.Rather, the statute directs the department to determine when a prison may exceed the statutory population limits.Neither sec. 46.054 nor Wis.Adm.Code, sec. HSS 309.39 bestow upon prison inmates the right to enforce specific limits within the institution.

Richards poses the question: if he does not have standing to challenge Wis.Adm.Code, sec. HSS 309.39, "who does[?]"The answer is found in sec. 227.40(1), Stats., and in the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution.Under sec. 227.40(1), a person who can establish that he or she has a legal right that is threatened or impaired by the rule has standing to challenge it.As we have said, Richards has no such right.

All prison inmates, however, have a constitutional right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution.Conditions of imprisonment are subject to constitutional scrutiny because the manner in which a prisoner is confined can...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
8 cases
  • Blue Cross and Blue Shield v. Hodurski
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • July 16, 2004
    ...a pure question of law, and the trial court's ruling on that issue is entitled to no deference on appeal. Richards v. Cullen, 152 Wis.2d 710, 712, 449 N.W.2d 318, 319 (App.1989)."). IV. Statutory Title 10, Chapter 4, Article 6, of the Alabama Code of 1975, governs nonstock corporations orga......
  • Field Enterprises v. Gresser
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • December 27, 1990
    ...is a question of law which we decide independently, owing no deference to the trial court's decision. Richards v. Cullen, 152 Wis.2d 710, 712, 449 N.W.2d 318, 319 (Ct.App.1989). And we decide it according to Illinois law, the law of the state in which the partnership was formed. See Giles v......
  • Berks v. Cade
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 27, 2014
    ...a pure question of law, and the trial court's ruling on that issue is entitled to no deference on appeal. Richards v. Cullen, 152 Wis.2d 710, 712, 449 N.W.2d 318, 319 (Wis.App.1989).’ ”Packaging Acquisition Corp. v. Hicks, 893 So.2d 299, 301–02 (Ala.2004) (quoting Medical Ass'n of Alabama v......
  • Medical Ass'n of State of Ala. v. Shoemake
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • February 24, 1995
    ...a pure question of law, and the trial court's ruling on that issue is entitled to no deference on appeal. Richards v. Cullen, 152 Wis.2d 710, 712, 449 N.W.2d 318, 319 (Wis.App.1989). The Medical Association and the four individual physicians filed their declaratory action under Ala.Code 197......
  • Get Started for Free

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT