Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION

PRO SE APPELLANT: ERIC D. SMITH Westville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana FRANCES H. BARROW Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ERIC D. SMITH, Appellant-Plaintiff, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 46A03-0704-CV-176

APPEAL FROM THE LAPORTE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Paul J. Baldoni, Judge Cause No. 46D03-0511-PL-374

September 14, 2007 OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

VAIDIK, Judge

Case Summary Following our reversal and remand to the trial court, Eric D. Smith ("Smith"), an inmate in the Indiana Department of Correction ("DOC"), now appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Maximum Control Facility and DOC employees Daniel R. McBride, Nell Hayes, Pam Bane, and Elaine Zschoche (collectively, "the Defendants") on his complaint for violation of Indiana's Access to Public Records Act. Because Smith has not paid for copies of the public records and because he is a prisoner in the DOC, which places restrictions on his ability to inspect the records himself, the Defendants did not violate the Access to Public Records Act by providing Smith with a summary of the records. We therefore affirm the trial court. Facts and Procedural History We were first introduced to this case in Smith v. Maximum Control Facility, 850 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). In that case, Smith, who at the time was incarcerated at the Maximum Control Facility in Westville, Indiana, requested "documents that would show how much money the Defendant Maximum Control Facility rec[ei]ved for the purpose of spending on prisoner meals and documents showing how much of their money was spent on prisoner meals[.]" 1 Appellant's App. p. 20. When the requested documents were not provided to him, Smith filed a formal complaint with the Public Access Counselor, who issued a formal advisory opinion that the Maximum Control Facility's "failure to timely respond to your request for access to public records is a violation of the Access to Public Records Act." Maximum Control Facility, 850 N.E.2d at 477 (record
Smith also requested documents regarding the facility's use of force. In this appeal, Smith only challenges the facility's response to his request for documents relating to money budgeted and spent on prisoner meals; therefore, we do not address the documents regarding the facility's use of force.
1

2

citation omitted). When the Maximum Control Facility still did not honor Smith's request for the documents, he again complained to the Public Access Counselor, who this time advised Smith that "a person who has been denied the right to inspect or copy a public record by a public agency may file an action in the circuit or superior court of the county in which the denial occurred to compel the agency to permit the person to inspect and copy the public record." Id. (record citation omitted). On November 2, 2005, Smith did just that and filed a pro se complaint in LaPorte Superior Court against the Defendants for "maliciously and/or negligently failing to timely respond to Mr. Smith's request of Access to Public Records, violation of the Access to Public Records Act (Indiana Code

Download Eric D. Smith v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law