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. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  2. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  3. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

  4. If justice is not found in a court room, it's time to clean house!!! Even judges are accountable to a higher Judge!!!

  5. The small claims system, based on my recent and current usage of it, is not exactly a shining example of justice prevailing. The system appears slow and clunky and people involved seem uninterested in actually serving justice within a reasonable time frame. Any improvement in accountability and performance would gain a vote from me. Speaking of voting, what do the people know about judges and justice from the bench perspective. I think they have a tendency to "vote" for judges based on party affiliation or name coolness factor (like Stoner, for example!). I don't know what to do in my current situation other than grin and bear it, but my case is an example of things working neither smoothly, effectively nor expeditiously. After this experience I'd pay more to have the higher courts hear the case -- if I had the money. Oh the conundrum.

ADVERTISEMENT