Litigious inmate

August 3, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
It seems like a month doesn’t go by without my reading an appellate case involving Eric D. Smith. It’s such a generic name, but his name always jumps out during a quick scan of the appellate opinions. He had two suits ruled on today.

Smith is very well-known by the courts, and because of the nature of our paper, we are also quite familiar with him. This inmate at the New Castle Correctional Facility has a penchant for litigation. According to appellate opinions, he has more than 50 cases on the docket and files about one suit a month.

Why? He’s purposely trying to clog up the judicial system. He’s upset about his arson conviction in 2001 and 20-year sentence. He’s filed dozens of law suits pro se alleging various violations involving makeshift hammocks, confiscated mail, and disciplinary hearing matters.

I don’t know of any other inmate who’s filed and appealed as many suits as Smith has. If there is, he or she isn’t appealing the trial court decisions with as much frequency as Smith.

Usually his suits get dismissed as frivolous, but every once in a while, he scores a victory. Last year, an appeal of his led to the Indiana Supreme Court holding the Three Strikes Law to be unconstitutional because it violated the Open Courts Clause of the state constitution.

As someone who reads appellate opinions every day, when I see his name on the list, I chuckle because I already have an idea that his case is going to be dismissed for being frivolous. I also think back to a handwritten letter he sent to Indiana Lawyer a few years ago, encouraging anarchy and saying he’s going to file every suit he can think of just to bog down the system. When you’re in prison, I guess that’s one way to try to “get back” at the judicial system.

I imagine the judges who have to deal with his filings aren’t amused. But as the appellate judges frequently point out, even if his suits end up being baseless, if they aren’t clearly baseless on the face, they have to survive. The courts still have to decide the merits of the case, even though they know Smith’s legal background.

Smith is getting his intended point across: He wants to annoy anyone who is responsible for putting him in prison and keeping him there. The judges in opinions constantly note his litigious nature, but by law, they must rule on his appeals. And as long as he keeps filing suits and the courts rule on them, we’ll keep writing about him.
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
  1. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT