By Carson Gerber
Kokomo Tribune, Ind.
BUNKER HILL — The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled against an inmate at Miami Correctional Facility who argued the prison withdrew money without permission from his prison account to pay for restitution he owed.
In 1990, Aaron Isby stabbed a correctional officer at the Pendleton Correctional Facility. The Indiana Department of Correction initiated prison disciplinary proceedings against him and imposed a sanction requiring Isby to pay over $8,000 in restitution for the officer’s medical expenses.
IDOC then began intercepting deposits made to Isby’s prison trust account and applying the monies toward restitution.
In 1996, Isby filed a small claims suit in LaPorte Superior Court. The Indiana Supreme Court held the LaPorte Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Isby’s challenge because the disciplinary sanctions and money collection were agency actions not subject to judicial review.
In May 2020, after Isby was transferred to Miami Correctional Facility, he filed an amended complaint as the IDOC continued to intercept deposits to his prison account to pay for his restitution.
In the new complaint, Isby argued the IDOC lacked the constitutional authority to impose a restitution sanction without first obtaining a civil judgment against him.
Miami County Circuit Court Judge Tim Spahr ended up dismissing the case without a hearing, citing the Indiana Supreme Court’s earlier ruling that the IDOC’s actions were not subject to judicial review.
The court of appeals agreed, arguing the IDOC may impose restitution as a disciplinary action. The court said while state law governs and provides means for the review of administrative agency actions, it exempts actions related to an offender within the jurisdiction the IDOC.
The appeals court also noted the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in another case that the Indiana Constitution did not confer a private right of action allowing judicial review of prison disciplinary decisions.
“Isby essentially finds himself in the same position now as when he initially challenged DOC’s restitution order and withdrawals,” the appeals court said in its ruling. “We are bound to follow the authority of the Indiana Supreme Court.”
(c)2021 the Kokomo Tribune (Kokomo, Ind.)