ILNews

COA reverses one dismissal of inmate's suit

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The New Castle inmate with a history of filing frivolous lawsuits got a minor victory in the Indiana Court of Appeals today. The judges reinstated his complaint against the only person who presided over the inmate's disciplinary hearing for a Department of Correction rule violation for filing a frivolous claim.

In Eric D. Smith v. Sgt. Thompson, DHB, and Barry Holder,  No. 33A01-0905-CV-214, Smith appealed pro se the dismissal of his complaint against Thompson, whose first name isn't listed in the suit, and Barry Holder as frivolous pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34-58-1-2. Smith's complaint in the instant case stems from a disciplinary hearing that was conducted with Thompson serving as the sole hearing member. After a trial court dismissed a Feb. 13, 2009, complaint as frivolous, the DOC charged Smith with a disciplinary rule violation for filing a frivolous claim.

Thompson found Smith guilty; Holder, acting for DOC Superintendent Jeff Wrigley, denied the appeal. Smith filed his complaint March 24, alleging Thompson and Holder denied his due process rights under the 14th Amendment. He claimed Thompson violated DOC policy by conducting the disciplinary hearing alone and that Thompson excluded Smith from the hearing and continued the hearing in his absence. Smith alleged Holder was indifferent to his claims on appeal. The trial court dismissed Smith's March 24 complaint as frivolous.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against Holder because Smith failed to make factual allegations of a depravation of due process, except that Holder was indifferent to his appeal. This is an attempt to appeal a DOC disciplinary action, which state courts can't review, wrote Judge Margret Robb.

Smith's claim against Thompson shouldn't have been dismissed, the appellate court determined. Because the trial court dismissed his complaint ab initio, the state never filed an answer nor did it take part in this appeal. Absent information to the contrary, the appellate court has to accept as true the well-pleaded facts in Smith's complaint, wrote the judge.

"[A]s a result, we must assume that the hearing was conducted in violation of DOC policy. In addition, Smith's exclusion from the hearing, if true, could constitute a violation of his basic due process rights," she wrote.

The Court of Appeals agreed with another panel of the court that given Smith's penchant for litigation, there's a strong possibility his claims in the instant case are false or exaggerations.

"While Smith's complaint may turn out to be baseless, it is not clearly baseless on its face, and it is sufficient to survive the screening of the statute with respect to Thompson," she wrote.

The case is remanded for further proceedings in light of the opinion.

The same appellate panel in a separate case also affirmed the dismissal of a separate complaint filed by Smith against Thompson; Wrigley; Jill Matthews, a former employee at the New Castle facility mailroom; and David Ittenbach, a current employee of the facility, ruling the trial court didn't err in dismissing his case as frivolous.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT