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

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