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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT