ILNews

Justices split on appellate review of prisoner litigant's claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One of Indiana's most well-known pro se prisoner litigants convinced two of the state justices that his latest appeal should get their attention, but the other three denied transfer relating to how the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed the case.

In an order Monday denying transfer in Eric D. Smith v. Steve Euler, et al., No. 46A03-1011-CT-592, the Supreme Court examined how the state’s intermediate appellate court had handled an appeal of the New Castle inmate earlier in the year.

Convicted of arson in 2001, Eric D. Smith is serving a 20-year sentence and has filed dozens of suits through the years. One of those, Eric D. Smith v. Indiana Department of Correction, et al., No. 49S02-0804-CV-166, resulted in the Indiana Supreme Court’s holding in April 2008 that the state’s “Three Strikes Rule” against prisoner litigation was unconstitutional because it effectively closed the door on some prisoners and their ability to file legitimate claims.

The online appellate docket shows Smith has filed 99 appeals since 2002, with less than a dozen of those being criminal or post-conviction relief cases.

The instant case is against two correctional officers and the prison counselor. Smith’s suit involves a LaPorte Superior Court judgment dismissing his suit on grounds that it had already been adjudicated, and the case made its way to the Court of Appeals in late 2010. The appellate court in January ordered that Smith show cause within 35 days as to why the appeal shouldn’t be dismissed on res judicata, and in late February the court found Smith hadn’t done that and dismissed the case with prejudice. Smith filed a transfer petition in March.

While three justices voted to deny transfer, Justices Frank Sullivan and Brent Dickson dissented and issued a separate opinion explaining their rationale. Specifically they took issue with how the appellate panel issued the order to show cause rather than address the res judicata questions as is typically done. These orders are typically used when a question exists about the court’s jurisdiction, or when a litigant hasn’t complied with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, Justice Sullivan wrote.

Noting that he’d written the high court’s decision three years ago that emphasized even frequent inmate lawsuit filers have a constitutional right to appeal, Justice Sullivan wrote that he believes the appellate court’s action was improper.

“In my view, this is no different than a trial court dismissing a tort claim on, say, statute-of-limitation grounds,” he wrote. “The plaintiff in such a situation would be entitled to appellate review of that dismissal; the court on appeal would not first issue an order to show cause as to why the appeal should not be dismissed on grounds of statute of limitations.”

Justice Dickson joined his colleague on the dissent, which ended: “I would grant transfer and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of Mr. Smith’s appeal on the merits unless, of course, Mr. Smith is guilty of abusing the appellate process to an extent warranting dismissal.”

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT