ILNews

SCOTUS denies one Indiana case, sidesteps others for now

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Supreme Court of the United States denied one prisoner lawsuit from Indiana today, while not saying whether it will address another case from this state on judicial speech. No decision was made on a third Hoosier case it heard arguments on more than a month ago addressing vehicular flight.

The Indiana case the court denied certiorari on – the pro se prisoner civil rights suit of Larry B. Benge v. Edwin G. Buss, No. 10-3332 – comes from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Southern District of Indiana.

In September, the Pendleton Correctional Facility inmate sued on allegations that his segregation in prison prohibited him from visiting the law library, access he needed to prepare for a separate action on habeas corpus relief. Citing caselaw that states there is no free-standing right to a law library or legal assistance in prison, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt found no evidence of prejudice and denied the case.

Benge appealed to the 7th Circuit in October and the appellate court dismissed the appeal because of the prisoner’s failure to pay the required docketing fee. He filed notice late last year of his intent to file a certiorari petition with the SCOTUS. The high court's denial puts an end to the case. The prisoner’s separate habeas petition action was dismissed against him at the end of February.

Issuing a 34-page order list today following its private conference late last week, the SCOTUS didn’t grant or deny certiorari on a case it was expected to address – Torrey Bauer v. Randall T. Shepard, No. 10-425, which asks whether Indiana’s judicial canons can restrict certain speech and activities of judges and judicial candidates. The court docket reflects the case was distributed for the justices to consider on Friday, although they’re not obligated to follow any timetable for a decision. U.S. Judge Theresa Springmann dismissed the case and upheld the canons, and the 7th Circuit last summer ruled the state canons aren’t unconstitutionally restrictive of free speech and should stand.

While the SCOTUS has no timetable on when it must rule on a case, justices could at any time issue a decision in the Indiana case of Marcus Sykes v. United States, No. 09-11311. It heard arguments on Jan. 12 on the case that involves a question of whether vehicular fleeing from police is considered a “violent felony” warranting enhanced sentences under federal law.

Dozens of pending cases and requests were included on the SCOTUS order list today, including one Kentucky suit asking the court to reconsider a 2005 ruling addressing whether Ten Commandment displays should be allowed on government property. The justices declined to accept the case of McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU of Kentucky, No. 10-566.

Aside from those issues, the court issued two opinions today in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, No. 09-152, and CSX Transportation Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, No. 09-520. In the Bruesewitz case, the court by a 6-2 vote held that a 1986 federal law prevents lawsuits by parents who claim that a drug maker should have sold a safer formulation of a vaccine that some say causes autism in children. The court in CSX Transportation voted 7-2 that the railroad company can challenge an Alabama tax of 4 percent on its purchase of diesel fuel.

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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT