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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT