ILNews

Federal courthouse on list for closure consideration

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

News that the federal courthouse in Terre Haute is being considered for closure brings a sense of déjà vu to the legal community.

A federal judicial committee has placed the Terre Haute Division of the Southern District of Indiana on its list of potential courthouse closures.

il-terrehautecourthouse-15col.jpg The federal courthouse in Terre Haute, built in 2009, is one of 60 facilities around the country being considered for closure by a U.S. Judicial Conference committee. (Submitted photo)

Closure of the courthouse has come up several times in recent years, including in the early 2000s when the 7th Circuit Judicial Conference considered whether the courthouse should close instead of trying to relocate after the United States Post Office – which shared space with the court and wanted to expand – decided not to renew the court’s lease.

The space and facilities committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference also considered closing the courthouse in 2006, placing it on the same list the court finds itself on again this year. The decision to build a new courthouse spared its closure six years ago.

Judicial officials are considering the closure of 60 courthouses in 29 states to cut costs. There are 674 courthouses and facilities across the country. The decision on what courts could close is far from finalized. Many connected to the Terre Haute location believe the busy docket and proximity to a federal penitentiary will save the court from the chopping block, but the possibility is generating a new wave of discussion about the court’s importance.

richard young Young

“I don’t want to cause concern among the bar, because I do think it’s highly unlikely that it would close,” said Chief Judge Richard Young of the Southern District of Indiana. “It’s important to make sure this is not blown out of proportion. Budget pressures facing the entire judiciary and government have caused an examination of all expenses and agencies, but this is just an initial part of the review. Just because it’s on the list doesn’t mean it’s going to be closed.”

Those facilities made the list because they do not have a full-time resident judge and instead rely on part-time magistrates or judges who travel from other larger divisions. The practice of reviewing courts without a resident judge goes back to 1997, according to spokesman David Sellers with the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts.

Critics say closing the courthouses could make it more difficult for people to get to court proceedings, particularly in the smaller, rural areas where many of the targeted courts are located. Annual operating costs and rent for the 60 listed facilities total more than $16 million, and Sellers said those expenses need decreased. But he said it’s too early to speculate how much money could be saved or how many jobs could be lost by the possible closures.

Court facilities on the list were ranked based on several categories such as cost, usage and location. A facility in Beaufort, S.C., tops the list, followed by the federal court site in Parkersburg, W.Va., and one in Harrison, Ark.

Meanwhile, the Terre Haute facility – which opened in 2009 at 921 Ohio St. after relocating from another site – is number 19 on the list.

The space and facilities committee sent this list to the 13 Circuit judicial councils for review in February, according to Sellers. The councils gave feedback to the committee in mid-April, allowing committee members to revise the list and forward its report to the U.S. Judicial Conference. Whether any courts close is up to the conference and would likely be decided at its September meeting. The U.S. Judicial Conference will look at factors such as caseloads and proximity to federal prisons.

Now, with Terre Haute again on the list, the 7th Circuit Judicial Conference has opposed the closure for reasons that include the new building.

Southern District Clerk Laura Briggs said the closure criteria gives the Terre Haute courthouse a fairly high “effectiveness” score of 383, considerably different than other courts that have scores in the double digits or even negative numbers.

The Terre Haute division is 78 miles from the Indianapolis courthouse, the next closest courthouse in the Southern District. The Terre Haute building is home to two clerk’s office staff and one probation officer. Southern District figures from fiscal year 2011 show more than 2,750 civil, criminal and bankruptcy cases were filed in that division, with nearly 120 trial hours between the District and bankruptcy judges, 43.4 in-court hours for the part-time magistrate and 157 prisoner productions by the U.S. Marshals Service. Each year on average, magistrates use the courthouse 40 days, with half of that by the part-time magistrate; the bankruptcy judges spend 50 days there.

The proximity to the high-security federal prison in Terre Haute also makes the location unique because it’s where federal death row inmates are housed, Briggs said.

“The court believes that the continued operation of the Terre Haute courthouse is imperative to the fair and effective administration of justice for the citizens and attorneys in western Indiana,” she said.

kyrouac Kyrouac

Terre Haute attorney Scott Kyrouac, immediate past-president of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana, said the court closure would have the biggest impact on the litigants. The local economy is poor and has a disproportionate number of debtors who need bankruptcy services in particular, he pointed out. They would be forced to go to Indianapolis.

State courts would also be impacted, as many of the federal cases in Terre Haute are diversity jurisdiction matters transferred from a state court from either Indiana or Illinois. An Indiana resident injured in a serious accident in Illinois has the option of filing a cause of action in the local federal court in Terre Haute. But without that close proximity, those actions may be limited for people who can’t or won’t travel to Indianapolis.

“To require them to travel almost two hours to a different federal court would place an unfair burden on such individuals,” Kyrouac said.

This second consideration for closure by the U.S. Judicial Conference has brought up questions about whether it might be time for a full-time resident judge at that courthouse just to keep it off the list in the future.

The consensus: there’s no need.

Statistics, economic realities, political practicalities, and the caliber of traveling judges make that unnecessary, the lawyers and judges say.

“The simple answer is that there isn’t enough here to justify a full-timer, but there is certainly enough to do that visiting judges can meet the needs,” said attorney and part-time Magistrate Judge Craig McKee.

He – like other area attorneys – believes it’s likely that the division won’t close. Still, McKee thinks it’s important for the legal community to discuss options about the impact and significance of that location.

McKee said the long-term lease for the courthouse and caseloads weigh in Terre Haute’s favor in keeping the court open, particularly because bankruptcy matters and individual felony defendants arising from large drug-conspiracy cases and the federal prison nearby make up the docket.

“Long before I was appointed to this position, I was working with colleagues in the local bar to preserve a federal court division in Terre Haute,” he said. “It’s not nearly as dire as the list would indicate, but this is highly important to the community and to the bar.”•

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT