James E. Manley v. Gregory F. Zoeller
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 230
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- James Manley, serving a 55-year aggregate sentence for child-molesting convictions (1997), sued the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC), Liberty Behavioral Health (Liberty), and GEO Group seeking declaratory and injunctive relief challenging mandated participation in the Sex Offender Management and Monitoring (SOMM) program.
- SOMM, contracted to Liberty, requires consent, evaluation, and (starting three years before release) treatment that can include admitting uncharged sexual offenses; refusal can trigger loss of good time credits and DOC disciplinary action.
- Manley alleged SOMM participation (or loss of credits for refusal) violated federal and Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, RLUIPA, federal and state free exercise clauses, due process, and was an ex post facto punishment (statutory credit-forfeiture authority adopted in 2006).
- The trial court granted DOC’s motion to dismiss on July 14, 2016 and entered an order dismissing Liberty on July 21, 2016, though the record shows confusion and a struck duplicate entry; GEO never moved to dismiss and the complaint remained pending as to GEO.
- Manley filed a proposed amended complaint (deposited Aug. 1, 2016); the trial court filed-stamped it Aug. 4 but on Aug. 15 declined to act on it as an improper pleading. Manley appealed the dismissals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dismissal is a final, appealable judgment | Manley treated trial-court dismissals as appealable and appealed | DOC/Liberty argued dismissal was partial (GEO remained), so no final judgment; appeal premature | Appeal dismissed for lack of final judgment; case remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether appellate court should nonetheless decide on merits despite non-final order | Manley sought review now | State argued appeal not ripe; premature because Manley not yet in SOMM treatment phase | Appellate court declined to reach merits and refused to exercise discretion to hear premature appeal |
| Whether trial court followed local rules on response time before granting dismissal | Manley argued trial court violated local Rule 33-TR-12-1 (15-day response) | Trial court acted quickly; defendants implied prompt rulings were proper | Court noted procedural irregularity and that pro se litigant is entitled to procedural protections; remand allows correction |
| Whether record confusion (duplicate/struck orders) requires clarification on dismissal as to Liberty | Manley pointed to conflicting entries about Liberty dismissal | Defendants did not clarify; trial court struck an order as duplicate without explanation | Court instructed trial court on remand to clarify the record regarding the July 21 order dismissing Liberty |
Key Cases Cited
- Manley v. Butts, 71 N.E.3d 1153 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (prior post-conviction and DOC-treatment litigation by the same plaintiff)
- Ramsey v. Moore, 959 N.E.2d 246 (Ind. 2012) (non-final orders generally not appealable)
- Ball State Univ. v. Irons, 27 N.E.3d 717 (Ind. 2015) (standards on interlocutory and appellate review)
- In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574 (Ind. 2017) (appellate courts may exercise discretion to consider premature appeals; clarified forfeiture vs. jurisdiction)
- Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448 (Ind. 2003) (treatment of appealability of non-final orders)
- American States Ins. Co. v. State ex rel. Jennings, 283 N.E.2d 529 (Ind. 1972) (purpose of appellate rules to achieve orderly and speedy justice)
- Buckalew v. Buckalew, 754 N.E.2d 896 (Ind. 2001) (trial courts must follow their local rules)
- Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259 (Ind. 2014) (standards and context for restricting abusive litigants)
- Tam v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 685 N.E.2d 1133 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (pro se litigants held to same standards but entitled to procedural protections)