ILNews

Court urges early review of offender litigation

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
An Indiana state prison inmate has filed dozens of lawsuits with claims that a painful odor violated his constitutional rights, he's been repeatedly denied access to public records, victimized by excessive force, and not given proper treatment behind bars.

The Indiana Appellate Clerk's Office has 35 of Eric D. Smith's appeals, most being civil suits that include one decided today, and six that remain pending awaiting action.

Today, the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed one of the 29-year-old's string of suits and the authoring jurist used the opinion to encourage trial judges to utilize a 2004 "three-strike" law limiting inmate's ability to file civil suits.

The opinion March 11 is Eric D. Smith v. Indiana Department of Correction, et al., No. 49A02-0706-CV-477.

Smith entered the state's prison system after being convicted of arson in 2001. Specifically, he was found guilty of starting a fire in an apartment complex on the west side of Indianapolis that left 12 families homeless and resulted in $2 million in damages. He was sentenced to 20 years.

He's filed numerous suits since then, the current case involving an August 2005 complaint where Smith sought injunctive and declaratory relief as to his segregated confinement in the Westville facility. He claimed this violated his human rights, according to the opinion, and at one point submitted a 99-page affidavit in support of a motion for summary judgment.

In April 2007, Marion Superior Judge Cynthia Ayers granted summary judgment to the DOC and found that it didn't have jurisdiction on possible violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as Smith claimed had been violated. The Court of Appeals summarily affirms that decision and describes the suit as frivolous.

But it also cited a state statute as a reason to dismiss the suit.

"Given the extraordinary expenditure of public resources in addressing the litigation filed by Smith, and to avoid such unnecessary and unwarranted costs to society in similar matters in the future, we direct trial courts to review and consider the application Indiana Code 34, Article 58 before permitting actions by incarcerated offenders to proceed," Judge Carr Darden wrote as a footnote on the tail end of the 10-page opinion.

The state statute at the focus of this case is Indiana Code 34-58-1-2, which says inmates are not allowed to file new litigation if they have at least three ongoing civil actions that a state court has dismissed. The only permissible reason would be if a court determines that inmate is in "immediate danger of serious bodily injury."

In theory, legitimate lawsuits move forward. Frivolous cases are tossed out.

Another footnote in the opinion notes an interesting finding: that all cases in which the annotated Indiana Code 34-58-2 has been applied involved this particular inmate.

Among the suits Smith has filed, one that gained national recognition was a claim of "cruel and unusual punishment" against the DOC for not supplying him with Rogaine for a thinning hairline. In that suit, he claimed that his baldness caused him mental harm, pain, and self-image problems and he had a constitutional right to hair loss products. The case was dismissed, but not before Smith amended the complaint several times and the Indiana Attorney General's Office was required to respond more than once.

While Smith has previously been unavailable for interviews by Indiana Lawyer, a letter he wrote to the state Attorney General's Office in June 2006 shows that he is proud of his litigation that has taken up time in court.

"Ha Ha! I'm costing the DOC and taxpayers all kinds of money," he wrote. "You guys wanna keep me in prison? Fine! I'm gonna make sure that I'm a costly prisoner... and by the time this 20 years adds up and is over with, I'm gonna cost all of you thousands and thousands of dollars! There's nothing that you can do."
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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT