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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT