Time on His Side? Seventh Circuit Court Gives Qualified Immunity To Workers Who Failed To Reduce Incarceration
If a prison is aware of a sentencing error involving a prisoner but chooses not to rectify it, are they liable?
Not always, according to the Seventh Circuit Court. In an en banc ruling on Jan. 31, 2025, a majority upheld a district court decision that a panel had previously overturned. They found that qualified immunity covered two Wisconsin Department of Correction employees who realized a sentencing error had been made but did nothing to fix it or alert others.
Mistakes Were Made
In 2004, John Sabo received a felony conviction for driving while intoxicated. His sentence was for three years of incarceration followed by two years of probation. Other sentences were involved, and the sentencing court changed his probation time from two years to five.
In July 2014, Sabo finished serving the required time in prison and was released on supervised probation. In 2017, he violated the terms of his parole with a misdemeanor charge and was re-incarcerated. While serving in county jail, Sabo realized the sentencing court had made an error.
Under Wisconsin law at the time, a court-ordered probation period was capped at three years. If the correct duration had been applied, Sabo's misdemeanor offense would have occurred after his probation had ended.
Armed with this information, Sabo's lawyer alerted his parole officer. The court addressed the issue within three weeks, and Sabo was released soon after. In 2019, Sabo filed suit against members of the Wisconsin Department of Correction for violating his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.
Sabo charged that Central Records Bureau employees Sheri Hicks and Debra Haley, charged with spotting errors with probation terms, were aware of the mistakes made in his case and thousands of others. He alleged that not only did they not correct it, they made no effort to alert anyone to the issue.
Sabo spent hundreds of days more behind bars or on probation than he was supposed to. Citing their 'deliberate indifference' to his Eighth Amendment rights, he sued for damages.
Legal Whiplash
Sabo's initial filing was dismissed in 2020 by an Eastern District of Wisconsin judge who ruled that Hicks and Haley had qualified immunity. He appealed his case to the Seventh Circuit. After hearing arguments in 2022, a three-judge panel overturned the lower court's dismissal in 2024.
The Seventh Circuit reheard the case en banc in September 2024. In a 9-2 decision released on Jan. 31, 2025, the majority ruled that Hicks and Haley were protected by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”
Here, the question was whether Haley and Hicks should have known that taking no action violated Sabo's Eighth Amendment rights. Sabo had identified a 2016 decision, Figgs v. Dawson, that he felt supported his claim that Haley and Hicks were on notice that keeping someone imprisoned despite a sentencing error was unconstitutional. However, the majority distinguished Figgs from Sabo's situation by holding that Hicks and Haley lacked notice of Sabo's erroneous sentence. Since Hicks and Haley weren't on notice that failing to investigate the erroneous sentence was unconstitutional (despite that being their jobs) the original dismissal of Sabo's case for qualified immunity was upheld.
Incarceration Frustration
The Seventh Circuit's decision can be viewed by some as a blow against the rights of prisoners, although the decision can also be considered as within the usual application of qualified immunity.
Related Resources
- Seventh Circuit Opinions and Cases (FindLaw's Case Law)
- Eighth Amendment: Protections Against Cruel and Unusual Punishments (FindLaw's Constitutional Law)
- In Jail Before You Trial? Know Your Rights (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
