Court Opinion

ID: 9505546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:06:20.279229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:34.429094
License: Public Domain

BOEHM, Justice,
concurring in result.
I agree with the majority that the trial court correctly dismissed Zimmerman's mandamus action. I reach that conclusion mainly because Zimmerman did not preserve what seem to me to be the interesting questions raised by these facts. Zimmerman made no claim that Indiana Code section 11-11-5-4 grants him a statutory right which is protected by Article I, Seetion 12's open courts clause.
We are left, then, with two open questions for another day. First, does Indiana Code section 11-11-5-4, which prohibits *339the Department of Corrections from imposing certain disciplinary actions, create a statutory right? If so, does Article I, Seetion 12 of the Indiana Constitution guarantee inmates a right to judicial review of disciplinary proceedings allegedly in violation of that statute?
Indiana Code section 11-11-5-4 provides that "The department [of corrections] may not impose the following as disciplinary action: ... (4) Restrictions on clothing, bedding, mail, visitation, reading and writing materials, or the use of hygienic facilities, except for abuse of these...." This statute effectively carves out a category of inmate privileges that may not be revoked through disciplinary proceedings. If the legislature has given inmates a statutory right, albeit a right subject to a number of restrictions, this case presents an issue not raised by Hasty v. Broglin 531 N.E.2d 200 (Ind.1988). The inmate in Hasty was docked good time following an administrative hearing, a process contemplated by the sentencing structure of the Indiana Criminal Code. Ind. Code § 85-50-6-5 (1998). Hasty noted that "[nleither Indiana statutes nor common law rules establish Hasty's right to judicial review of prison disciplinary action. - Absent statutory authorization, Indiana courts have declined to review a decision of a penal institution to take away an inmate's good-time credit for a prison infraction." Id. at 201. The Hasty holding, however, does not address whether Zimmerman has recourse to the state courts to address an alleged violation of a right conferred by statute.
Hasty also did not address the potential application of Article I, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution. That section provides, "All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law." Although there is no case law in Indiana directly on this point, in the view of some, an open courts clause of this sort "promises that for injuries recognized elsewhere in the law, the courts will be open for meaningful redress." Jennifer Friesen, State Constitutional Law § 6-2(e) (2d ed.1996). The implications of this constitutional provision for an inmate's claim of violation of a statutory right remain unaddressed by this Court.