ILNews

Court of Appeals again denies prisoner's suit

Rebecca Berfanger
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Yet another one of Westville prisoner Eric Smith's lawsuits has made its way to the Court of Appeals.

In an opinion released today, Eric Smith v. Indiana Department of Correction, et al., 46A03-0607-CV-327, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's decision of case 46D03-0410-CT-365.

Pro se, Smith filed the complaint against the Department of Correction and numerous individual employees regarding the grant of the Department of Corrections motion for judgment on the pleadings, the denial of Smith's request for appointment of counsel, the denial of his request to amend his complaint, and the denial of his motion to compel discovery.

According to the online Indiana Appellate Court docket, Smith has filed at least 22 suits making their way to appeals over the years. That doesn't include a Supreme Court decision appointing a special judge to consider one claim, and three criminal post-conviction decisions from appellate judges. The docket lists seven of Smith's cases for 2007.

Smith entered the state's prison system after being convicted of arson in 2001. He was found guilty of starting a fire in an apartment complex that left 12 families homeless and resulted in $2 million in damages. He was sentenced to 20 years.

The issues Smith introduced in this most recent case to make it to the Court of Appeals regarded an incident on June 18, 2004 - the same day he was incarcerated in the Maximum Control Facility in Westville - in which other prisoners attempted to flood the prison after they did not receive lunch.

When Smith saw feces and toilet paper in water that flooded into his cell, he kicked on the cell door to get the attention of prison officers. The officers told him they had been instructed to get Smith's tennis shoes, but he refused.

One of the guards had the cell extraction team come for Smith, and when he still refused, he was sprayed with mace and "mace pellets" that "caused his skin to break, bleed and bruise," according to the opinion.

On Oct. 28, 2004, Smith filed a complaint against the DOC alleging negligence and requested appointment of counsel. On Nov. 10, 2004, the trial court denied his request, finding it was unlikely that he would prevail on his claims.

The 19-page opinion continues to document further complaints and motions Smith has filed in trial court. The opinion also considers Smith's claim that the prison guards should not be shielded by the Indiana Tort Claims Act because Smith claimed the cell extraction team was not properly authorized, and therefore the officers were acting outside of the scope of their employment.

However, the Court of Appeals denied this claim, stating that "enforcing discipline and maintaining prison security is clearly within the prison officers' scope of employment. As such, Smith cannot prevail on his claim against the prison officers individually."

Indiana Lawyer reported about Smith's cases in the July 26-Aug. 8, 2006, edition.
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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT