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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT