Case Title: James H. Higgason, Jr. v. Indiana Dept. of Correction

Citation: 

Docket Number: 46S04-0804-CV-167

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2008-04-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
APPELLANT PRO SE 
 
 
 
 
 
James H. Higgason, Jr. 
Michigan City, Indiana 
________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 46S04-0804-CV-167 
 
JAMES H. HIGGASON, JR.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Plaintiff below), 
 
v. 
 
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Defendant below). 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the LaPorte Superior Court, No. 46D03-0608-SC-1024  
The Honorable Paul J. Baldoni, Judge 
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 46A04-0610-CV-582  
_________________________________ 
 
April 9, 2008 
 
Boehm, Justice. 
James Higgason, Jr. brings this claim in the amount of $2109.111 for the cost of 
photocopying four copies of his 476-page habeas corpus petition. 
The trial court dismissed Higgason’s claim under Indiana’s Three Strikes Law, Indiana 
Code § 34-58-2-1 (West Supp. 2007), finding that Higgason was barred from bringing a claim 
                                                 
1 This number appears to be the sum of expenses Higgason would have had to pay the Northern District 
of Indiana for the clerk to make the required copies of his 476-page habeas petition, along with 
Higgason’s actual expenditures in making the photocopies.  Higgason’s actual out-of-pocket expenses 
were only $205.11. 
 
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
Apr 09 2008, 11:57 am
because he had filed three previous frivolous suits and was not in immediate danger of serious 
bodily injury.2  Higgason appealed, arguing that the Three Strikes law violated the Open Courts 
Clause found in article 1, section 12 of the Indiana Constitution.  The Court of Appeals affirmed 
the trial court and upheld the Three Strikes Law in an unpublished opinion.  Higgason v. Dep’t 
of Corr., No. 46A04-0610-CV-582 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2007).  Judge Sullivan concurred in 
part and dissented in part, concluding that the Three Strikes Law is unconstitutional, but that 
Higgason’s claim should still be dismissed as frivolous.  Id.  We grant transfer concurrent with 
this opinion. 
For the reasons given in Smith v. Indiana Department of Correction, No. 49S02-0804-
CV-166, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. April 9, 2008), also decided today, we agree with Higgason and 
Judge Sullivan that the Three Strikes Law violates the Open Courts Clause of the Indiana 
Constitution.  Higgason’s claim may not be dismissed solely because of his earlier litigation.   
Higgason claims he is entitled to money for photocopying costs because of a state-created 
right to gratuitous photocopies of legal pleadings.  Specifically, Higgason cites Indiana 
Department of Correction policy 00-01-102, p. 6, § VII (9/1/2002 version).3  Courts generally 
have the power to review state agency actions pursuant to the Administrative Orders and 
Procedures Act.  See Ind. Code §§ 4-21.5-1-1 to -7-9 (2004); Montgomery v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 
                                                 
2 The Three Strikes Law provides:  
If an offender has filed at least three (3) civil actions in which a state court has dismissed 
the action or a claim under IC 34-58-1-2, the offender may not file a new complaint or 
petition unless a court determines that the offender is in immediate danger of serious 
bodily injury (as defined in IC 35-41-1-25). 
 
Higgason claims that the court should address his claim because he is in “immediate danger of 
serious bodily injury.”  However, Higgason’s only claim for relief is for fees for photocopying, and not 
relief from alleged abuse or relief from future harm.  This quoted allegation is an exception from the 
Three Strikes Law, which we have held is invalid.  It adds nothing to his claim for copying costs. 
 
3 Higgason claims the policy states in pertinent part: 
In those cases where an offender does not have sufficient funds in the Inmate Trust Fund 
to pay for necessary copies of pleadings or other documents to be filed with a court, the 
facility shall provide the offender without charge: 
A. Two (2) copies for the court or another amount as required by the court; 
B. One (1) copy for each opposing party or their legal representative; and 
C. One (1) copy for the offender’s records. 
 
 
2
794 N.E.2d 1124, 1126 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).  However, Indiana Code section 4-21.5-2-5(6) 
provides that AOPA does not apply to agency actions “related to an offender within the 
jurisdiction of the department of correction.”  As Justice Rucker put it, it is now “settled law” 
that “enforcement of prison disciplinary sanctions are not subject to judicial review.”  Israel v. 
Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 868 N.E.2d 1123, 1124 (Ind. 2007) (Rucker, J., concurring) (citing Blanck v. 
Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 829 N.E.2d 505, 510 (Ind. 2005)).  Higgason’s claim for copying costs under 
a Department of Correction policy, like challenges to prison discipline, is a claim challenging 
agency action that is “related to an offender within the jurisdiction of the department of 
correction.”  It is therefore, under settled law, “not a claim upon which relief may be granted” 
and so is dismissible under the Frivolous Claim Law.  Ind. Code Ann. § 34-58-1 (West Supp. 
2007).4  We note that Higgason maintains the right to file a written grievance with the 
Department of Correction concerning the alleged violations of policy.  210 Ind. Admin. Code 3-
1-15(h) (2004); Ind. Code § 11-11-1-2 (2004).   
Conclusion 
                                                 
4 The sections of the Frivolous Claim Law relevant here are: 
Sec. 1. Upon receipt of a complaint or petition filed by an offender, the court shall docket 
the case and take no further action until the court has conducted the review required by 
section 2 of this chapter. 
Sec. 2. (a) A court shall review a complaint or petition filed by an offender and shall 
determine if the claim may proceed.  A claim may not proceed if the court 
determines that the claim: 
(1) is frivolous; 
(2) is not a claim upon which relief may be granted; or 
(3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 
liability for such relief. 
(b) A claim is frivolous under subsection (a)(1) if the claim: 
(1) is made primarily to harass a person; or 
(2) lacks an arguable basis either in: 
(A) law; or 
(B) fact. 
 
 
3
 
4
ny 
event. 
The order dismissing Higgason’s claim under the Three Strikes Law is reversed.  This 
case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the claim under the Frivolous 
Claim Law. 
 
Dickson and Rucker, JJ., concur.   
Shepard, C.J., concurs in result.   
Sullivan, J., concurs in result believing that Ind. Code § 34-58-2-1 is constitutional as 
applied to Higgason but that the claim is subject to dismissal under Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2 in a