ILNews

Inmate loses appeal of visitation restrictions by DOC

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An inmate at the Pendleton Correctional Facility can have his visitation restricted to non-contact visits due to committing battery with a deadly weapon and violating disciplinary procedures, the Court of Appeals concluded.

After Lavelle Malone was found guilty by the Disciplinary Hearing Board of violating Adult Disciplinary Procedures Code 102, he was sanctioned in various areas, including modifying his visits to non-contact for one year.

Malone believed that this restriction violated Indiana Code 11-11-5-(4) and disciplinary policy 02-04-101 because those dictate that visitation privileges can only be restricted if one violates a privilege rule.

The trial court dismissed Malone’s petition for writ of mandate filed against Keith Butts, superintendent of the correctional facility, and Bruce Lemmon, Department of Correction commissioner, for failure to state a claim.

Malone’s argument is based on an erroneous assumption that his visitation rights were restricted pursuant to a disciplinary decision, to which I.C. 11-11-54(4) would restrict. However, his visitation modification was based on an administrative action, which allows for this type of modification, Judge Elaine Brown wrote in Lavelle Malone v. Keith Butts and Bruce Lemmon, 48A02-1203-MI-228.

In response to an argument made by the state, the judges held that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case as Malone brought his claim by petition for writ of mandate.

 

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. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  2. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  3. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  4. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  5. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.

ADVERTISEMENT