Filed Date: 1996
Clearinghouse coding complete
During or prior to 1996, two inmates housed in the Protective Custody Unit (PCU) of the Indiana State Farm filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the State violated their rights under the state and federal constitutions and state statutes by treating them differently from inmates in the general population. The Putnam Circuit Court (Judge Diana LaViolette) certified a plaintiff class consisting of all present and future prisoners who were or would be subject to protective custody subsequent to the filing of the complaint.
The claims of most of the members of the plaintiff-class were settled prior to trial. After a two-day bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the State on the remaining claims.
The plaintiffs appealed and the Indiana Court of Appeals (Judge Edward W. Najam) reversed the Circuit Court. Faver v. Bayh, 689 N.E.2d 727 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). The Court of Appeals held that (1) the State violated the Equal Protection Clause by denying inmates who were voluntarily housed in PCU "idle pay" while providing such pay to general population inmates and inmates involuntarily committed to PCU; and (2) the State violated Title 11 of the Indiana Code by denying education programs to PCU inmates.
The case appears to have remained active for some years following the 1997 Court of Appeals Decision. On January 25, 2000, the Court of Appeals of Indiana (Judge John G. Baker) affirmed some unknown action of the lower court via an unpublished Memorandum Decision. Faver v. Bayh, 722 N.E.2d 917 (Ind.App. 2000).
We have no further information on this case.
Summary Authors
Vidhya Reddy (3/4/2008)
Najam, Edward W. Jr. (Indiana)
Falk, Kenneth J. (Indiana)
Arthur, David A. (Indiana)
Modisett, Jeffrey A. (Indiana)
Baker, John G. (Indiana)
Najam, Edward W. Jr. (Indiana)
Staton, Robert H. (Indiana)
Sullivan, Jeremiah (Indiana)
Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 2:38 p.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Indiana
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: 1996
Case Ongoing: Unknown
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All present and future Inmates who were or would be in protective custody at the Indiana State Farm, located in Putnamville, Indiana, subsequent to the filing of the complaint.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown
Filed Pro Se: Unknown
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Indiana Department of Corrections, State
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Source of Relief:
Issues
General:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Affected Sex or Gender:
Type of Facility: