ILNews

7th Circuit Court: Class action suit isn't moot

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A class action lawsuit filed by an inmate at the Tippecanoe County Jail who has since been transferred can proceed through the litigation process to determine if class action certification is proper, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded today.

The Circuit judges reversed the District Court's dismissal of Jeffery Mark Olson's suit as moot in Jeffery Mark Olson, on behalf of himself and a class of those similarly situated v. Tracy Brown, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Tippecanoe County, No. 09-2728. Olson filed his complaint alleging violations of his rights under the federal constitution and Indiana law for opening his mail and denying access to the law library. He sued the sheriff while he was an inmate in the county jail. Shortly after Olson filed his suit and motion for class certification, the Indiana Department of Correction transferred him. The District Court ruled the suit was moot because the transfer took place before class certification.

The issue before the 7th Circuit was whether Olson's claim is so "inherently transitory" that it is uncertain that any member of the class would maintain a live controversy long enough for a judge to certify a class. In Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the problem of mootness for class claims brought by pre-trial detainees and found in that case that a constant class of people suffering the alleged deprivation is certain and the court could assume that counsel had other clients with a continuing live interest in the issues.

The 7th Circuit - which hadn't yet applied the Gerstein line of cases to a case involving jail inmates - agreed with the 2nd Circuit's determination that the Gerstein line of cases require a claim to meet two main elements for the "inherently transitory" exception to apply. One, it is uncertain that a claim will remain live for any individual who could be named as a plaintiff long enough for a court to certify the class; and two, there will be a constant class of persons suffering the deprivation complained of in the complaint.

It's uncertain that any potential named plaintiff in the class of inmates would have a live claim long enough for a District Court to certify a class, wrote Judge Joel Flaum. In addition, there will be a constant class of people suffering the deprivation. Olson, however, only sought injunctive relief and is no longer subject to the conditions that formed the basis of his complaint, so the issue is resolved in relation to him.

The Circuit Court declined to address the issue of class certification and instead remanded to the District Court for consideration of the motion for class certification and Sheriff Tracy Brown's motion for dismissal for failure to state a claim, which the District Court did not address before dismissing the case.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT