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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT