Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 893.735 (2026)
Action by prisoner contesting a governmental decision
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
893.735(2)(2) An action seeking a remedy available by certiorari made on behalf of a prisoner is barred unless commenced within 45 days after the cause of action accrues. The 45-day period shall begin on the date of the decision or disposition, except that the court may extend the period by as many days as the prisoner proves have elapsed between the decision or disposition and the prisoner’s actual notice of the decision or disposition. Subject to no contact requirements of a court or the department of corrections, a prisoner in administrative confinement, program segregation or adjustment segregation may communicate by 1st class mail, in accordance with department of corrections’ rules or with written policies of the custodian of the prisoner, with a 3rd party outside the institution regarding the action or special proceeding.
893.735(3)(3) In this section, an action seeking a remedy available by certiorari is commenced at the time that the prisoner files a petition seeking a writ of certiorari with a court.
893.735 AnnotationThe words “on behalf of” in sub. (2) are not restricted to third-party conduct. The time limit applies to actions filed by a prisoner on behalf of himself or herself. State ex rel. Collins v. Cooke, 2000 WI App 101, 235 Wis. 2d 63, 611 N.W.2d 774, 99-1212.
893.735 AnnotationPersons seeking certiorari review of probation revocation are prisoners subject to the 45-day filing deadline under sub. (2). State ex rel. Cramer v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2000 WI 86, 236 Wis. 2d 473, 613 N.W.2d 591, 99-1089.
893.735 AnnotationThe definition of “prisoner” in s. 801.02 (7) (a) 2. does not include a Wisconsin inmate sent to an out-of-state county jail, and, therefore, the 45-day limit does not apply to the inmate. State ex rel. Frohwirth v. Wisconsin Parole Commission, 2000 WI App 139, 237 Wis. 2d 627, 614 N.W.2d 541, 99-2079.
893.735 AnnotationWhen a prison inmate places a certiorari petition in the prison’s mailbox for forwarding to the circuit court, the 45-day limit under sub. (2) is tolled. However, other defects in filing may nonetheless result in rejection by the court. State ex rel. Shimkus v. Sondalle, 2000 WI App 262, 240 Wis. 2d 310, 622 N.W.2d 763, 00-0841.
893.735 AnnotationTo invoke the tolling of the 45-day limit under sub. (2), an inmate must present an affidavit or some other sufficient evidence of the date on which the petition was deposited in the institution mailbox. State ex rel. Shimkus v. Sondalle, 2000 WI App 262, 240 Wis. 2d 310, 622 N.W.2d 763, 00-0841.
893.735 AnnotationA verified petition, being a sworn statement, that was unchallenged by the state was sufficient to establish the number of days between the date of the challenged decision and the prisoner’s receipt of it. There were no circumstances justifying not extending the 45-day limit pursuant to sub. (2). State ex rel. Johnson v. Litscher, 2001 WI App 47, 241 Wis. 2d 407, 625 N.W.2d 887, 00-1485.
893.735 AnnotationThat out-of-state inmates have a longer filing deadline for challenging parole revocation under Frohwirth, 2000 WI App 139, does not violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. State ex rel. Saffold v. Schwarz, 2001 WI App 56, 241 Wis. 2d 253, 625 N.W.2d 333, 99-2945.
893.735 AnnotationThe statute of limitations is tolled while a prisoner waits for the Department of Justice to provide the certification required by ss. 801.02 (7) (d) and 802.05 (3) (c). State ex rel. Locklear v. Schwarz, 2001 WI App 74, 242 Wis. 2d 327, 629 N.W.2d 30, 99-3211.
893.735 AnnotationFor purposes of sub. (2), tolling of the 45-day clock for prisoners to commence actions begins when the documents over which prisoners have control have been mailed, and all of the documents over which prisoners have no control have been requested by the prisoners. The time begins running again when those documents are within the prisoners’ control. State ex rel. Walker v. McCaughtry, 2001 WI App 110, 244 Wis. 2d 177, 629 N.W.2d 17, 00-1439.
893.735 AnnotationTo invoke the tolling of the 45-day limit under sub. (2), a prisoner must submit proper documents and comply with statutory fee or fee-waiver requirements. State ex rel. Tyler v. Bett, 2002 WI App 234, 257 Wis. 2d 606, 652 N.W.2d 800, 01-2808.
893.735 AnnotationPetitioners were entitled to equitable relief when they timely asked counsel to file for certiorari, counsel promised to do so, and due to counsel’s failure to timely file they were denied certiorari review. The 45-day time limit for the filing of a writ of certiorari was equitably tolled as of the date that counsel promised to file for certiorari review. State ex rel. Griffin v. Smith, 2004 WI 36, 270 Wis. 2d 235, 677 N.W.2d 259, 01-2345.
893.735 AnnotationThe combined effects of subs. (2) and (3) and s. 801.02 (7) (c) is that the administrative-process documents expansively described in s. 801.02 (7) (c) are required to timely pursue a prepayment waiver, and they are also required under this section to timely commence a writ action. Mitchell v. Buesgen, 2024 WI App 14, 411 Wis. 2d 269, 4 N.W.3d 596, 22-1076.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: State Ex Rel. L'Minggio v. Gamble, 2003 WI 82 (Wis. 2003).
State Ex Rel. L'Minggio v. Gamble, 2003 WI 82 (Wis. 2003). “[1] The circuit court construed L'Minggio's petition for habeas corpus as a petition for certiorari and dismissed it as untimely under Wis. Stat. § 893.735 (2) (1999-2000). [2] The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of L'Minggio's action, but on the grounds that L'Minggio…”
State Ex Rel. Griffin v. Smith, 2004 WI 36 (Wis. 2004). “In Griffin's case, counsel filed the petition, but it was dismissed as being outside the 45-day time limit established by Wis. Stat. § 893.735 (2) (2001-02). [5] Both petitioners subsequently sought habeas corpus relief in the circuit court, alleging ineffective assistance of…”
State Ex Rel. Cramer v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2000 WI 86 (Wis. 2000). “Schwartz, Judge, dismissed the petition, finding that Cramer had not complied with the 45-day filing deadline that Wis. Stat. § 893.735 (2) (1997-98) [2] imposes upon persons subject to the PLRA.”
State Ex Rel. Steldt v. McCaughtry, 2000 WI App 176 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “See Wis. Stat. § 893.735 (2). On October 15,1998, Steldt's petition for a writ of certiorari was received by the clerk of the Dodge County Circuit Court.”
State Ex Rel. Nichols v. Litscher, 2001 WI 119 (Wis. 2001). “In a recent court of appeals decision, Shimkus, 2000 WI App 238 , a pro se prisoner, Mark Shimkus, sought circuit court certiorari review of a prison disciplinary committee decision pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 893.735 . 3 Under § 893.735, a prisoner seeking such review generally…”
State Ex Rel. Walker v. McCaughtry, 2001 WI App 110 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “Wis. Stat. § 893.735 (2). The cause of action accrues on the date of decision unless the prisoner proves he or she received notice of the decision at a later date.”
State Ex Rel. Tyler v. Bett, 2002 WI App 234 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “The circuit court dismissed his petition because it was filed after the expiration of the forty-five-day period for commencing actions for certio-rari review under Wis. Stat. § 893.735 (1999-2000). 1 Tyler claims that he is entitled to have the filing deadline extended under the…”
State Ex Rel. Collins v. Cooke, 2000 WI App 101 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “1 Collins contends that the circuit court wrongly interpreted § 893.735 because it only applies to certiorari actions made "on behalf of a prisoner," not by the prisoner himself or herself.”
State Ex Rel. Shimkus v. Sondalle, 2000 WI App 238 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “Because it is undisputed that Shimkus deposited his petition, along with an authorization to withdraw the filing fee from his prison account, in the appropriate mail receptacle at Fox Lake well within the time limit for filing such actions, we reverse, concluding that, under…”
State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Litscher, 2001 WI App 47 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “Apparently it did not consider his verified petition and attachments as proof under Wis. Stat. § 893.735 (2) of the number of days that had elapsed between Litscher's decision and Johnson's actual notice of that decision.”
State Ex Rel. Locklear v. Schwarz, 2001 WI App 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “To determine the point at which a petition for writ of certiorari is filed for the purpose of satisfying the forty-five day deadline, we must interpret and apply Wis. Stat. § 893.735 . The interpretation and application of statutes present questions of law that we review de novo.”
State Ex Rel. Schatz v. McCaughtry, 2003 WI 80 (Wis. 2003). “It cited Wis. Stat. § 893.735 which provides that an action seeking a remedy available by certiorari made on behalf of a prisoner is barred unless commenced within 45 days after the cause of action accrues.”
— Wis. Stat. § 893.735(1) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Frohwirth v. Wisconsin Parole Comm'n, 2000 WI App 139 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).
— Wis. Stat. § 893.735(2) — 19 cases
State Ex Rel. L'Minggio v. Gamble, 2003 WI 82 (Wis. 2003). “[1] The circuit court construed L'Minggio's petition for habeas corpus as a petition for certiorari and dismissed it as untimely under Wis. Stat. § 893.735 (2) (1999-2000). [2] The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of L'Minggio's action, but on the grounds that L'Minggio…”
State Ex Rel. Shimkus v. Sondalle, 2000 WI App 238 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “Because it is undisputed that Shimkus deposited his petition, along with an authorization to withdraw the filing fee from his prison account, in the appropriate mail receptacle at Fox Lake well within the time limit for filing such actions, we reverse, concluding that, under…”
State Ex Rel. Steldt v. McCaughtry, 2000 WI App 176 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “See Wis. Stat. § 893.735 (2). On October 15,1998, Steldt's petition for a writ of certiorari was received by the clerk of the Dodge County Circuit Court.”
State Ex Rel. Grzelak v. Bertrand, 2003 WI 102 (Wis. 2003).
State Ex Rel. Tyler v. Bett, 2002 WI App 234 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “The circuit court dismissed his petition because it was filed after the expiration of the forty-five-day period for commencing actions for certio-rari review under Wis. Stat. § 893.735 (1999-2000). 1 Tyler claims that he is entitled to have the filing deadline extended under the…”
— Wis. Stat. § 893.735(3) — 5 cases
State Ex Rel. Steldt v. McCaughtry, 2000 WI App 176 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “See Wis. Stat. § 893.735 (2). On October 15,1998, Steldt's petition for a writ of certiorari was received by the clerk of the Dodge County Circuit Court.”
State Ex Rel. Purifoy v. Malone, 2002 WI App 151 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).
State Ex Rel. Shimkus v. Sondalle, 2000 WI App 262 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).
Artillis Mitchell v. Chris S. Buesgen, 2024 WI App 14 (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
Michael J. Vieth v. John Tate, II (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.