University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Lacy v. Butts PC-IN-0021
Docket / Court 1:13-cv-00811-RLY-DML ( S.D. Ind. )
State/Territory Indiana
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Attorney Organization Legal Services/Legal Aid
Case Summary
An Indiana Department of Corrections inmate filed this class action lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on May 16, 2013. The plaintiff, who was previously convicted of a sex offense but has maintained his innocence since, ... read more >
An Indiana Department of Corrections inmate filed this class action lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on May 16, 2013. The plaintiff, who was previously convicted of a sex offense but has maintained his innocence since, alleged that the Indiana Department of Corrections has made it mandatory for all convicted sex offenders to participate in the Indiana Sex Offender Management and Monitoring (INSOMM) program. The INSOMM program requires participants admit their misconduct as part of a plan of therapy. Participants must admit not only the crimes of which they have been convicted but also all other sexual misconduct, including acts that still could be prosecuted which the plaintiff argued violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The plaintiff alleged that refusing to participate in the INSOMM program resulted in reports of his conduct, segregation, loss of privileges at the prison, and loss of good-time credit towards early release.

On September 11, 2013, District Judge Richard L. Young dismissed this case for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Judge Young relied on Entzi v. Redmann, 485 F.3d 998, 1004 (8th Cir. 2007), which he interpreted to hold that a state's exercise of discretion over a prisoner's release (such as a good-time credit program) does not make self-accusation compulsory.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing that Indiana's good-time credit program is not discretionary, since prisoners are entitled to credits unless they misbehave. On May 29, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an order vacating the judgment and remanding the case with further instructions. 564 Fed. Appx. 844 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court of Appeals held that it was not necessary to rule on whether the good-time credit program was mandatory since the much of the relief the plaintiff was seeking is not available under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 instead. The Court of Appeals instructed the District Judge to ask the plaintiff whether he was willing to have the suit treated as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Otherwise, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff's case should be dismissed. The plaintiff entered his order of agreement pursuant to the Court of Appeal's order on June 2, 2014, thus continuing this lawsuit.

On October 23, 2014, the District Court consolidated five additional cases under the plaintiff's case, and an attorney from the Indiana Federal Community Defenders was appointed to represent the plaintiffs.

On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and a motion for preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining the Indiana Department of Corrections from continuing to compel the plaintiffs' participation in INSOMM. On September 30, 2015, Judge Young granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification, defined as "[a]ll persons incarcerated in the Indiana Department of Correction who have been asked to participate in the Indiana Sex Offender Management Program, who have refused to participate because they refuse to confess guilt on the primary offense or disclose other criminal conduct as required by the INSOMM program, and who have been subjected to disciplinary action in the form of lost credit time and/or demotion in credit class as a result." Judge Young also denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction as moot, allowing the plaintiffs to file a new consolidated motion for preliminary injunction in light of the court's class certification order.

This case is ongoing in the District Court.

John He - 10/07/2015


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Self-incrimination
Defendant-type
Corrections
General
Conditions of confinement
Disciplinary procedures
Disciplinary segregation
Rehabilitation
Sex offender regulation
Visiting
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Indiana Department of Corrections
Plaintiff Description Individuals incarcerated in the Indiana Department of Corrections who have a prior sex offense conviction, who have been, or will be asked to participate in the Indiana Sex Offender Management Program (INSOMM), and who have, or will refuse to participate because they refuse to confess guilt on the primary offense or disclose other criminal conduct as required by the INSOMM program.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations Legal Services/Legal Aid
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders
N.Y.U. Law Review
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University)
Citation: 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550 (2006)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons
By: Malcolm M. Feeley & Edward Rubin (UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law & Vanderbilt School of Law Faculty)
Citation: (1998)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
1:13−cv−00811 (S.D. Ind.) 09/30/2015
PC-IN-0021-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 05/16/2013
PC-IN-0021-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Entry and Order Directing Dismissal of Action 09/11/2013 (S.D. Ind.)
PC-IN-0021-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Vacating Dismissal] 05/29/2014 (564 Fed.Appx. 844)
PC-IN-0021-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Entry Discussing Motions for Class Certification 09/30/2015 (2015 WL 5775497) (S.D. Ind.)
PC-IN-0021-0004.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Easterbrook, Frank Hoover (Seventh Circuit)
PC-IN-0021-0003
Rovner, Ilana Kara Diamond (Seventh Circuit, N.D. Ill.)
PC-IN-0021-0003
Williams, Ann Claire (Seventh Circuit, N.D. Ill.)
PC-IN-0021-0003
Young, Richard L. (S.D. Ind.)
PC-IN-0021-0002 | PC-IN-0021-0004 | PC-IN-0021-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Varner, Sara J (Indiana)
PC-IN-0021-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Barrow, Frances Hale (Indiana)
PC-IN-0021-9000
Nagy, Jonathan Paul (Indiana)
PC-IN-0021-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -