Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1709-MI-2129 | June 29, 2018 Page 1 of 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Dominic A. Lowe

Greencastle, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Abigail R. Recker

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Dominic A. Lowe,

Appellant-Plaintiff,

v.

Brian Smith, the Warden of the 

Putnamville Correctional 

Facility, et al.,

Appellees-Defendants.

June 29, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

67A01-1709-MI-2129

Appeal from the Putnam Superior 

Court

The Honorable Charles D. Bridges, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

67D01-1701-MI-37

Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1709-MI-2129 | June 29, 2018 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary and Issue

[1] Dominic Lowe appeals pro se from the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint 

alleging violations of the United States Constitution, the Indiana Constitution, 

and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Lowe raises one 

issue for our review which we restate as whether the trial court erred in 

dismissing his complaint. Concluding the trial court erred in dismissing Lowe’s 

complaint, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further 

proceedings.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Lowe, an inmate housed at the Putnamville Correctional Facility, filed a 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging four officials at the 

correctional facility violated his right to freely exercise his Muslim faith. 

According to his complaint, a new policy at the correctional facility no longer 

permits Lowe and other Muslim inmates to hold congregational prayer in a 

certain room as they are accustomed to; rather, the new policy only permits 

them to pray while seated at tables. Appellant’s Appendix, Volume 2 at 9.

[3] In December of 2016, Lowe filed a formal grievance with the correctional 

facility. Both Lowe’s grievance and appeal were denied. In May of 2017, 

Lowe filed a complaint naming Brian Smith, the Warden of Putnamville 

Correctional Facility; Alisha Lawrence, an administrator at Putnamville 

Correctional Facility; Chris Williams, a grievance specialist at Putnamville 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1709-MI-2129 | June 29, 2018 Page 3 of 6

Correctional Facility; and David Liebel, the Indiana Department of Correction 

Director of Religious and Volunteer Services, as defendants. Lowe’s complaint 

alleges the correctional facility’s policy violates the Free Exercise Clause and 

Equal Protection Clause of both the United States and Indiana Constitutions, as 

well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. In his prayer 

for relief, Lowe sought “injunctive relief in the form of amendments to the 

policies barring the free exercise of Muslim congregational prayer” and 

$3,000.01 in monetary damages. Appellant’s App., Vol. 2 at 4.

[4] On August 11, 2017, the trial court issued an order dismissing Lowe’s 

complaint for “fail[ing] to state a claim upon which relief may [sic] be granted, 

pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(b)(6) [sic], as the Defendant’s [sic] were 

following IDOC policies and procedures.” Id. at 13. Lowe now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Lowe contends the trial court erred in dismissing his case for failing to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. The State concedes the trial court’s 

dismissal of the complaint was in error and concludes the correct resolution of 

Lowe’s appeal is to remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. 

We agree with both Lowe and the State that the trial court erred in dismissing 

the complaint.

[6] Indiana Code section 34-58-1-2(a) states, in relevant part, a trial court shall 

review a complaint filed by a prisoner to determine if the complaint may 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1709-MI-2129 | June 29, 2018 Page 4 of 6

proceed. A prisoner complaint may not proceed if the trial court determines 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 such relief. 

Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2(a). In this case, the trial court “[found Lowe] failed to 

state a claim upon which relief may [sic] be granted, pursuant to Indiana Trial 

Rule 12(b)(6) [sic], as the Defendant’s [sic] were following IDOC policies and 

procedures. Accordingly, there were no violations of [Lowe’s] rights under the 

First and Fourteenth Amendments . . . .” Appellant’s App., Vol. 2 at 13.

[7] We review the dismissal of an offender’s complaint pursuant to Indiana Code 

section 34-58-1-2

1 de novo. Smith v. Sgt. Thompson, DHB, 910 N.E.2d 260, 262 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2009). The language of Indiana Code section 34-58-1-2(a)(2), 

like Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 12(B)(6), requires the trial court, and this 

court on appeal, to determine whether a claim is legally sufficient. Peterson v. 

Lambert, 885 N.E.2d 719, 721 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). In making this 

determination, we take the allegations on the face of the complaint as true and 

dismiss only if the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover under any set of 

facts admissible under those allegations. Id. 

[8] Lowe’s complaint alleges the correctional facility’s policy forbidding Muslim 

inmates from congregating for prayer together in a certain room within the 

 

1Although the trial court cited Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 12(B)(6) as the basis for the dismissal, the trial 

court’s summary dismissal suggests the trial court screened the complaint as it is required to do pursuant to 

Indiana Code chapter 34-58-1. Regardless, we review both under a de novo standard of review. Medley v. 

Lemmon, 994 N.E.2d 1177, 1182 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1709-MI-2129 | June 29, 2018 Page 5 of 6

prison violates the Free Exercise Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 

United States Constitution and the Indiana Constitution, as well as section 

2000cc-1(a) of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. See

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. Lowe has brought his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983, which states, in relevant part, 

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, 

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the 

District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any 

citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction 

thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities 

secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party 

injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper 

proceeding for redress . . . .

[9] It is well-settled that prison walls do not form a barrier separating prisoners 

from the protections of the Constitution, Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84 

(1987), but prisoners’ rights may be restricted by virtue of their status as an 

inmate and based on the needs of the penal institution, Jones v. North Carolina 

Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 125 (1977). Lowe has alleged in his 

complaint that the correctional facility’s policy restricting the place and manner 

in which Muslim inmates may pray violates his constitutional right to the free 

exercise of his religion. This is sufficient at the pleading stage to state a claim 

for relief or to suggest his religious exercise was substantially burdened for the 

purpose of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. See 

Graves v. Kovacs, 990 N.E.2d 972, 976 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (noting a complaint 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1709-MI-2129 | June 29, 2018 Page 6 of 6

need not state all the elements of a cause of action and is sufficient if it puts a 

reasonable person on notice as to why a plaintiff sues).2

Conclusion

[10] The trial court erred in dismissing Lowe’s complaint. Accordingly, we reverse 

the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

[11] Reversed and remanded.

Najam, J., and Altice, J., concur.

 

2 Lowe’s prayer for relief requested both an injunction and monetary damages. Lowe’s lawsuit seeks relief 

from the correctional facility officials in their “official capacity,” Appellant’s App., Vol. 2 at 2-3, therefore, he 

is not entitled to monetary damages. City of Warsaw v. Orban, 884 N.E.2d 262, 267-68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)

(noting a state official may not be sued in his or her official capacity for retrospective relief under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983), trans. denied. Lowe may, however, seek prospective relief in the form of an injunction. Id.