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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT