×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
No Restriction on Moving Wisconsin Prisoners to Private Out of State Prisons
The plaintiff sought an injunction against his transfer to a private prison in Texas or Tennessee. His commitment to the "Wisconsin State Prisons" as opposed to the "Wisconsin Department of Corrections" does not mean he has a state law right to avoid transfer, and anyway state law is not enforceable in federal court. The failure to give notice that he may be incarcerated out of state did not deny due process; it is the conduct prohibited, not the potential sanctions, of which a criminal defendant must receive adequate notice.
The fact that the plaintiff may be forced to work at the prison to which he is transferred does not violate the Constitution, and the same rule applies to private prisons.
The Constitution does not prevent transfers out of state or to private prisons. Richardson v. Knight buttresses the prior conclusion by expressing no concern about private incarceration while recounting its history. See: Lambert v. Sullivan, 35 F.Supp.2d 1131 (E.D.Wis. 1999).
The fact that the plaintiff may be forced to work at the prison to which he is transferred does not violate the Constitution, and the same rule applies to private prisons.
The Constitution does not prevent transfers out of state or to private prisons. Richardson v. Knight buttresses the prior conclusion by expressing no concern about private incarceration while recounting its history. See: Lambert v. Sullivan, 35 F.Supp.2d 1131 (E.D.Wis. 1999).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Lambert v. Sullivan
| Year | 1999 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 35 F.Supp.2d 1131 (E.D.Wis. 1999) |
| Level | District Court |
| Injunction Status | N/A |