ILNews

Inmate loses 3 appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eric D. Smith, the New Castle inmate with the propensity for filing pro se suits, lost three appeals today with the Indiana Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of a mailroom worker and the final reviewing authority officer for offender grievances in Eric D. Smith v. Jill Matthews and Linda Vannatta, No. 33A04-0903-CV-155. Smith alleged his constitutional rights were violated when books he requested on anarchy were confiscated and destroyed before he got them. Jill Matthews, the mailroom worker, placed them in a box for review by prison officials. Another official made the decision to destroy them. Linda Vannatta affirmed the confiscation, and Smith alleged she was deliberately indifferent to his claims. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Matthews and granted Vannatta's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

"Even if Smith's First Amendment rights were violated - and we do not mean to imply that they were - Matthews could not be liable for such a violation, because she had no authority to determine the materials were prohibited or to order their destruction," wrote Judge Margret Robb.

Smith's due process claim against Vannatta doesn't have merit because the United States' Constitution doesn't require a jail have grievance procedures and doesn't protect state-created inmate grievance procedures. Even if Smith's allegations are true, he failed to state a claim for which 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 provides a remedy, wrote the judge. Smith has an administrative remedy for wrongful deprivation of property in Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-7.

Smith also lost in his appeal of a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 complaint alleging Eighth and 14th amendment violations following the use of tear gas by the Department of Correction in the unit where he was housed after some inmates started a fire. He claimed it caused him pain and suffering. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of his complaint pursuant to I.C. Section 35-58-1-2 in Smith v. Stanley Knight, et al., No. 48A02-0902-CV-124. His complaint had no arguable basis in law or fact, wrote Judge Carr Darden.

The appellate court also affirmed the dismissal of Smith's complaint against the DOC commissioner and employees of the GEO Group, Inc., which operates and manages the New Castle Facility, in Smith v. J. David Donahue, et al., No. 33A01-0812-CV-607. In this complaint, Smith alleged violations of his First and 14th amendment rights when he was denied adequate use of the law library, assistance from a legal assistant, and that he had been prevented from posting mail and was treated differently than other inmates.

In April 2008, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled the state's 2004 "Three Strikes Law" violated the Indiana Constitution's Open Courts Clause based on an appeal by Smith of one of his suits against the Department of Correction.

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