 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bintzler v. Borgen5/26/2005
Kirk Bintzler appeals a judgment dismissing his small claims action seeking back pay and reinstatement of certain prison privileges. Bintzler claims the circuit court erred in concluding that this action was barred because he did not file a timely notice of claim under WIS. STAT.§ 893.82(3). Because Bintzler seeks to recover money from the State of Wisconsin without first having complied with WIS. STAT.§§ 16.007 and 775.01, we conclude that this action is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. We therefore affirm the judgment dismissing this action.
BACKGROUND
At the time of the events leading to this action, and at the time of its filing, Bintzler was an inmate of a Wisconsin correctional institution. He filed a small claims action against Thomas Borgen, warden of the Fox Lake Correctional Institution, seeking the reinstatement of his prison job and back pay for lost wages. Bintzler alleged that, in September of 2002, Borgen set aside a conduct report issued against Bintzler in May of that year. At the same time, Borgen allegedly instructed prison staff to make Bintzler "whole" by giving him the back pay he would have earned from his prison job had he not been terminated from it on account of the conduct report.
Bintzler attached to his complaint a copy of a notice of claim he filed with the Wisconsin Attorney General's office pursuant to WIS.STAT.§ 893.82(3). The notice is dated October 3, 2003, and alleges that a deputy warden upheld the rejection of Bintzler's claim for back pay that he had filed via the Inmate Complaint Review System (ICRS). Bintzler also filed copies of his ICRS complaint, dated September 1, 2003, and of the Inmate Complaint Examiner's recommendation for rejection of the complaint, dated September 10, 2003, on the grounds that Bintzler's complaint was not timely. Bintzler also attached documents to his small claims complaint from an earlier ICRS complaint he had filed in 2001. Bintzler was successful on that occasion in obtaining a back pay award of $598.50.
Warden Borgen responded to Bintzler's small claims complaint with a motion to dismiss. The warden maintained that Bintzler's notice of claim had not been timely filed and that the warden was immune from Bintzler's suit for back pay under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The circuit court granted the motion, concluding that Bintzler had failed to file his notice of claim within 120 days of his 2001 award of back pay, which the court understood to be the event causing the injury about which Bintzler now complained. Bintzler appeals the subsequently entered judgment of dismissal.
ANALYSIS
We first note that the warden acknowledges on appeal that his counsel in the circuit court proceedings, and the circuit court as well, may have misunderstood Bintzler's present claim. Bintzler is suing to recover back pay he sought in 2003 stemming from the warden's action in setting aside a conduct report in September of 2002. He is not suing for additional back pay relating to the 2001 award, as the circuit court appears to have concluded. The warden contends, however, that despite the apparent misunderstanding of the nature and chronology of Bintzler's present claim in the circuit court, we should still affirm the dismissal because the circuit court reached the correct result, although perhaps for the wrong reason. See State v. Rognrud, 156 Wis. 2d 783, 789, 457 N.W.2d 573 (Ct. App. 1990).
We appreciate the warden's candor and his assistance in explicating Bintzler's claim and the circuit court proceedings. We also agree that, as the respondent, the warden may advance any theory or rationale that will permit us to affirm the circuit court's
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|