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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT