Leiser v. Bretzel

United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin · July 31, 2025 · No. 2:23-cv-00395

Summary

This United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin decision grants the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismisses the plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. The court found that the plaintiff's 30-day disciplinary segregation at a correctional facility did not impose an "atypical and significant hardship" sufficient to trigger a protected liberty interest under prevailing Seventh Circuit precedent. Consequently, the court determined that no constitutional due process violation occurred and denied the plaintiff's associated motions for an evidentiary hearing and sanctions.

Court
United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
Writing for the Court
C. Dries
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Decision date
July 31, 2025
Docket number
2:23-cv-00395
Procedural posture
Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted; case dismissed.
Precedential value
unpublished
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

prisoners rightscivil rightsprocedural due processsummary judgmentcivil procedurefourteenth amendment

Practice areas

civil rightsconstitutional lawcivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a 30‑day disciplinary segregation imposes a protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on his due‑process claim

Holdings

  1. A 30‑day disciplinary segregation does not constitute an atypical and significant hardship and therefore does not create a protected liberty interest for a prisoner.
  2. Summary judgment is proper because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a deprivation of a protected liberty interest and therefore cannot establish the elements of his Fourteenth Amendment claim.

Key quotations

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (at 1)
Plaintiff’s 30‑day confinement, in other words, was identical to everyone else who was on disciplinary segregation for violating prison rules; and it, therefore, was not an “atypical and significant hardship” in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. (at 1)

Factual background

Plaintiff, an inmate at Redgranite Correctional Institution, received two conduct reports for alleged threats and disrespect. He served 30 days of disciplinary segregation. He alleged that the segregation and related conditions deprived him of a liberty interest without adequate procedural safeguards.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed a civil rights action alleging a Fourteenth Amendment due‑process violation arising from two conduct reports and 30 days of disciplinary segregation. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted, dismissing the case. Plaintiff's motion for an evidentiary hearing and sanctions was denied.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…