COA affirms man not falsely arrested, imprisoned

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals declined to address whether a pro se prisoner is “incapacitated” for purposes of the Indiana Tort Claims Act in a man’s appeal of his suit involving false arrest and false imprisonment.

Bruce Fox filed a suit against several entities, including West Central Community Corrections, for false arrest, false imprisonment, and violation of rights under the state and federal constitutions. In 1997, Fox was arrested for child molestation and possession of marijuana. He pleaded guilty to the drug charge and was sentenced to probation. He violated his probation and was committed to the WCCC to administer 269 days of home detention, which he began in February 1998. In March of that year, he was found guilty of the child molesting charges and committed to the Indiana Department of Correction.

When he was released in 2004, Fox was sent to the WCCC pursuant to a hold on his record. Fox believed his home detention sentence had run and he completed his required imprisonment. No one at the WCCC could answer why Fox was in their custody and he was eventually transferred to jail. He was finally released Nov. 4, 2004. He filed his tort claims notice May 3, 2005, which was 180 days from his release. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of WCCC after concluding the notice was filed beyond the 180-day period required under the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

In Bruce R. Fox v. Dennis Rice and West Central Community Corrections, No. 54A01-1003-PL-97, Fox argued that the 180-day period didn’t begin to toll on July 15, 2004, the date he allegedly was unlawfully imprisoned, but should start when he was released Nov. 4. The Court of Appeals rejected Fox’s arguments. The doctrine of continuing wrong doesn’t prevent the statute of limitations from beginning to run when a plaintiff learns of facts that would lead to the discovery of the cause of action, even if the relationship with the tortfeasor continues, wrote Judge Margret Robb. The application of this doctrine is prohibited because Fox suspected a mistake and the repeated comments that the WCCC didn’t know why he was there should have led to Fox discovering his claims.     

Fox argued that he was “incapacitated” under the ITCA because he was without realistic access to civil attorneys to discuss his potential civil claims.

“Lack of ‘realistic access’ to an attorney is insufficient to render Fox incapacitated,” wrote Judge Robb. She noted that the appellate court didn’t directly address the issue of whether a pro se prisoner is “incapacitated” in McGill v. Ind. Dept. of Correction, 636 N.E.2d 199, 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). “However, for us to address this issue and conclude in the affirmative would create the problematic incentive for prisoners to forego legal counsel. Further, and more importantly, we lack authority to legislate that pro se prisoners are per se ‘incapacitated’; this is a question for the General Assembly.”

The appellate judges also affirmed summary judgment in favor of WCCC on Fox’s false imprisonment claim because his federal claim didn’t contain a genuine issue of material fact.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?