Court tackles scope of 'frivolous'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals today used an inmate's appeal of the dismissal of his complaint to address the scope of the word "frivolous" in Indiana's Frivolous Claim Law. And even though this inmate has filed dozens of law suits since being incarcerated, it doesn't mean his suits can be automatically deemed frivolous by the trial courts.

In Eric D. Smith v. Jeff Wrigley and David L. Ittenbach, No. 33A05-0903-CV-156, New Castle Correctional Facility inmate Eric Smith appealed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 suit against Jeff Wrigley, the superintendent, and David Ittenbach, the grievance executive assistant to the facility. Smith's suit alleges deprivation of his Eighth Amendment rights because inmates have no control over the temperature of the water during showers and he has to wear ankle shackles when he's taken out of his cell. He claimed the prison staff makes the water too hot or too cold to dissuade inmates from showering and possibly injuring them with the hot water; he said wearing the ankle shackles cause severe pain because he had broken his ankle.

The trial court reviewed his suit under the state's Frivolous Claim Law and dismissed it for being frivolous because it was made primarily to harass a person and lacked an arguable basis in both law and fact. But the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the complaint wasn't baseless on its face.

In order to determine the scope of "frivolous" in Indiana's law, the appellate court turned to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act and Supreme Court of the United States rulings in Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992). Because the state's law tracks the federal statutes, as well as SCOTUS' interpretation of "frivolous" in those statutes, the Court of Appeals adopted that interpretation, wrote Judge Patricia Riley.

In Neitzke, the U.S. Supreme Court justices distinguished between claims that are legally frivolous and those that are factually frivolous: a legally frivolous claim is one of infringement of a legal interest which clearly doesn't exist, and a factual claim is one describing fantastic or delusional scenarios. Expanding on that in Denton, the SCOTUS ruled dismissal for factual frivolousness isn't proper simply because the court finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikely.

Smith's contentions that the scalding water temperatures or pain caused by the ankle shackles violate his Eighth Amendment rights is a valid legal theory and conclusion, even if it's eventually determined the facts he alleges are false, wrote Judge Riley. In addition, his claims don't meet the standard for factual frivolousness.

"While Smith's complaint might turn out to be baseless, it is not clearly baseless on its face. To borrow from one current United States Supreme Court justice, Smith's complaint does not include claims about little green men, his recent trip to Pluto, or his experiences in time travel," she wrote.

The appellate court acknowledged Smith's penchant for filing claims and noted he has more than 50 pending on the docket and there's a good chance he's filed countless more that just haven't made it to the Court of Appeals yet. Judge Riley mentioned former suits filed by Smith that were frivolous, such as his claim he has an inalienable right to Rogaine hair product.

Judge Riley also wrote the court has no doubt Smith files most of his complaints to primarily harass the defendants or the courts, which fits one of the definitions of Indiana's Frivolous Claim Law. And even though there is little reason to believe anything he says or writes, in cases such as this one, the courts cannot resolve his claims based on speculation.

"Put bluntly, we cannot endorse a system in which Eric Smith's complaints are dismissed merely because they were filed by Eric Smith. This would be the equivalent of shutting the courthouse doors altogether," she wrote. "Indiana's Three Strikes Law did the same thing to Smith, and last year, our supreme court found that law to be unconstitutional."

The appellate court also clarified their holding today isn't that all prisoner complaints must be allowed to proceed past the pleading phase, and ones that are facially frivolous - like requesting Rogaine - can be summarily dismissed at the screening stage. It also encouraged the General Assembly to consider some of the steps taken by other states in attempt to lessen the burden of meritless offender litigation.


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

  2. 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?

  3. 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"

  4. 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?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?