Schilling v. both

Order Ronald schilling filed a complaint in the district court alleging that the Wisconsin Department of Health and social Services (the Department) violated his constitutional rights when they refused to change his security status from medium security to minimum security. Schilling alleged that the Department failed to follow proper procedures in altering the criteria for determining security status, which resulted in the improper decision to retain his medium security rating. The district court denied leave for schilling to proceed in forma pauperis, and denied Schilling's subsequent motion for reconsideration. The court granted, however, leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The issue on appeal is whether the district court improperly denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court. The essence of Schilling's complaint, and the only recognizable constitutional claim, is that the Department violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by improperly refusing to change his status.1 In order to succeed in his due process claim, schilling must be able to demonstrate the impairment of a liberty interest. ""A liberty interest may arise from the due process clause itself . . . or it may be created by statute or binding administrative regulation."" Castaneda v. Henman, F.2d , No. 89-1353, slip op. at 4 (7th Cir. October 1, 1990).