22 N.E.3d 716
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Randal L. Young, an Indiana DOC inmate serving multiple consecutive robbery sentences, lost 750 days of credit time for disciplinary violations and sought restoration.
- In 2007 the DOC restored 173 days; in 2008 Young sought restoration of additional credit time that had been lost during a prior, already-completed sentence and was denied.
- DOC policy (Manual § IX.E-9(d)) limits restoration requests to credit time deprived during the offender’s current sentence; credit deprived while serving a previous sentence cannot be restored.
- Young sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the DOC policy violates equal protection under the U.S. and Indiana Constitutions by discriminating against inmates serving consecutive sentences.
- The trial court entered judgment on the pleadings for the DOC; Young appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC policy limiting restoration to credit lost during the current sentence violates equal protection by discriminating against inmates serving consecutive sentences | Young: Policy treats inmates serving consecutive sentences worse because it prevents restoring credit lost on earlier consecutive terms and applying it to current term | DOC: Consecutive sentences are legally distinct terms; policy treats all offenders the same by allowing restoration only for credit lost during the sentence being served | Policy is constitutional; no disparate treatment. § IX.E-9(d) does not violate federal or state equal protection guarantees |
Key Cases Cited
- Culver-Union Twp. Ambulance Serv. v. Steindler, 629 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind. 1994) (standard for judgment on the pleadings mirrors dismissal for failure to state a claim)
- Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC v. National Trust Ins. Co., 3 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. 2014) (de novo review and accepting factual allegations for T.R. 12(B)(6) analysis)
- McCalment v. Eli Lilly & Co., 860 N.E.2d 884 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (court need not credit legal conclusions or nonfactual assertions when reviewing pleadings)
- Worman Enters., Inc. v. Boone Cnty. Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 805 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. 2004) (equal protection requires showing disparate treatment)
- Collins v. Day, 644 N.E.2d 72 (Ind. 1994) (Indiana Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause analyzed independently though similar to federal equal protection)
- Crider v. State, 984 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. 2013) (consecutive sentences are separate punishments; each criminal act receives a distinct sentence)