Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION
APPELLANT PRO SE: ERIC D. SMITH New Castle, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana ELIZABETH ROGERS Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Jun 17 2009, 9:27 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ERIC D. SMITH, Appellant-Plaintiff, vs. JILL MATTHEWS and LINDA VANNATTA, Appellees-Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CLERK

No. 33A04-0903-CV-155

APPEAL FROM THE HENRY SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Michael Peyton, Judge Cause No. 33D01-0808-PL-16

June 17, 2009

OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Judge

Case Summary and Issues Eric Smith, an inmate at the New Castle Correctional Facility appeals pro se from the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Jill Matthews and judgment on the pleadings in favor of L.A. Vannatta. For our review, Smith raises two issues, which we restate as: 1) whether the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of Matthews; and 2) whether the trial court erred when it granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of Vannatta. Finding no error, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History Smith requested various books on the subject of anarchy from the Books 4 Prisoners Crew. When the books arrived at the prison, Matthews, a worker in the mailroom, placed them in a box for review by prison officials to determine whether the materials constituted prohibited property. Another prison official, presumably K. Stevens, made the decision to confiscate the books. The books were eventually destroyed. Smith filed a grievance first with officials at the prison and second with the Department of Correction ("DOC"). Vannatta is the final reviewing authority for offender grievances. Smith alleges that Vannatta "did not look over the confiscated items and was deliberately indifferent to [his] claims. Vannatta just simply agreed with Mathew's [sic] actions ...."1 Appellant's Appendix at 6. On August 6, 2008, Smith filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging violation of his constitutional rights. Specifically, Smith alleges Matthews violated
1

Although Smith alleges Vannatta rejected his grievance, he produced no documentary evidence

2

his rights under the First Amendment and Vannatta violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. On November 19, 2008, Smith filed a motion for summary judgment. On January 22, 2009, Matthews filed a motion for summary judgment and on February 11, 2009, Vannatta filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court entered separate orders on March 4, 2009, granting Matthew's motion for summary judgment and Vannatta's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Smith now appeals. Discussion and Decision I. Summary Judgment The party appealing a summary judgment decision has the burden of persuading this court that the grant or denial of summary judgment was erroneous. Severson v. Bd. of Trs. of Purdue Univ., 777 N.E.2d 1181, 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). We review summary judgment decisions using this same standard, considering only those materials designated to the trial court. Neu v. Gibson, 905 N.E.2d 465, 472-73 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Based on the evidence designated by Smith in his complaint, Matthews is a mail room employee and does not have the authority to determine which materials received in the mail are prohibited and which are not. Rather, Matthews places any materials she suspects are prohibited into bins for review by prison investigators. Although Matthews's name appears on the form reporting the confiscation of Smith's books, it appears only as the "staff person

supporting the allegation or demonstrating exactly what action Vannatta took with regard to his grievance.

3

requesting action on correspondence." Appellant's App. at 15. Matthews's signature does not appear on the form.2 Even if Smith's First Amendment rights were violated

Download Eric D. Smith v. Jill Matthews and Linda Vannatta.pdf

Indiana Law