Suit against traffic court sent back to state court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A lawsuit against the Marion Superior traffic court over fees has been moved back to state court.

U.S. District Judge William T. Lawrence ordered to state court Toshiano Ishii, et al. v. Marion County Superior Court No. 13, et al., No. 1:09-CV-1509, a suit which claims Marion County Judge William E. Young violates residents' constitutional rights by imposing additional fees on those who unsuccessfully challenge their tickets and by closing proceedings to the public.

The plaintiffs filed the suit in Marion Superior Court No. 11 in December 2009. According to the suit, Toshiano Ishii appeared in traffic court to contest a ticket; he lost and was fined an additional $400. Matthew Stone was cited for improperly wearing a seatbelt. He wears it differently because of a pacemaker and chose not to challenge the ticket because of Judge Young's policy. Adam Lenkowsky asked to enter the courtroom as a member of the public and was denied entrance.

They claim when Judge Young took the bench in traffic court in 2009, he instituted a policy that defendants who come before his court and are found guilty would be fined up to an additional $500 and could even be assessed up to $10,000 plus court costs. The traffic courtroom is also open only to defendants and prevents parents of minors to be present during proceedings. The threat of these fines violates the federal and state constitutions, according to the suit.

The case was moved to U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division in late December at the city's request.

But attorneys want the case back in state court, so they voluntarily dismissed their federal claims. In the order entered Thursday by Judge Lawrence, merely doing that does not divest the federal court of subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367, which provides for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over claims based upon state law that are closely related to the federal claims in a case.

However, there is a presumption that a District Court judge will relinquish jurisdiction over any supplemental claim to the state courts once federal claims are removed. There are exceptions to that general rule, but none of those apply in the instant case, the judge continued.

Judge Lawrence ordered the case back to Marion Superior Court and also denied plaintiffs' request that defendants be sanctioned for suggesting that federal court still had jurisdiction over the case.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.