Ben Yisrayl v. Sgt. Reed

FILED
Mar 28 2018, 5:40 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ben Yisrayl Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Michigan City, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Aaron T. Craft
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ben Yisrayl, March 28, 2018
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
46A03-1706-SC-1524
v. Appeal from the LaPorte Superior
Court
Sgt. Reed, The Honorable Greta Stirling
Appellee-Defendant. Friedman, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
46D04-1701-SC-225
Barnes, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] After a trial by affidavit, Chijioke Bomani Ben Yisrayl appeals the trial court’s
denial and dismissal of his claim in replevin. We affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1706-SC-1524 | March 28, 2018 Page 1 of 8
Issue
[2] The sole issue before us is whether the trial court erred in denying and
dismissing Yisrayl’s claim.
Facts
[3] Yisrayl is an offender incarcerated in Michigan City. In June 2016, Yisrayl
began “a 90 day probationary period as a PLUS Aide[, a job classification
within] the Indiana State Prison.”1 App. Vol. II p. 31. On July 14, 2016, he
purchased an Xbox 360 gaming console, two controllers, and twenty-five video
games (“Xbox and accessories”). On September 7, 2016, Yisrayl’s “position as
a PLUS aide was terminated[.]” Id. at 36. He appealed the decision, but was
unsuccessful. On November 16, 2016, the prison superintendent
[mandated] that only ICH offenders and offenders serving as
PLUS Aide[s] are authorized an Xbox. All other offenders are
not authorized to have an Xbox or Xbox games.
Id. at 32. That same day, the facility’s offender special purchases department
instructed Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) correctional officer Sgt.
Reed to confiscate Yisrayl’s Xbox and accessories. Sgt. Reed did so, gave
Yisrayl a confiscation slip that stated that he was “Not Allow[ed] to have” the
1
The Indiana State Prison’s PLUS (Purposeful Living Units Serve) program is “a faith- and character-based
re-entry initiative” that “focuses on strengthening spiritual, moral, and character development as well as life-
skills.” See https://www.in.gov/idoc/2356.htm (last visited March 13, 2018).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1706-SC-1524 | March 28, 2018 Page 2 of 8
items, notified Yisrayl that he could challenge the seizure through the
“Offender Grievance Process[,]” and “turned in[ ]” the items. Id. at 27, 32.
Yisrayl was authorized to “designate someone to pick up his confiscated
property[,]” but had not done so as of April 4, 2017. Id. at 32.
[4] On January 30, 2017, Yisrayl filed a small claims complaint and a
contemporaneous motion for summary judgment against Sgt. Reed “for
confiscating [his] personal property . . . for no reason at all” in violation of
Indiana Code Section 11-11-2-3 and his property rights. Id. at 17. Yisrayl
sought the items’ return and a declaration that he was entitled to them.
[5] On March 10, 2017, the trial court set the matter for a trial by affidavit to
commence on March 24, 2017, pursuant to a court-designated timetable for
each party’s submission of affidavits and exhibits and for Yisrayl’s rebuttal
evidence. Subsequently, Sgt. Reed filed his exhibits and affidavit, wherein he
averred to the foregoing facts; he also submitted the affidavit of DOC tort
claims investigator Pam James, who averred, in part, as follows:
7. Offender Yisrayl underwent a 90 day probationary period
as a PLUS Aide within the Indiana State Prison, beginning in
June 2016. Exhibit B.
8. During his time as a PLUS Aide, Offender Yisrayl was
authorized to have an Xbox and Xbox games.
9. In September 2016, Offender Yisrayl was terminated as a
PLUS Aide and changed jobs within the facility. . . .
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1706-SC-1524 | March 28, 2018 Page 3 of 8
10. Offender Yisrayl appealed the termination of his position
as a PLUS Aide, which was denied. . . .
11. On November 16, 2016, the Indiana State Prison
Superintendent issued a directive for the facility, which mandated
that only ICH offenders and offenders serving as PLUS Aide are
authorized an Xbox. All other offenders are not authorized to
have an Xbox or Xbox games.[2]
12. Offender Yisrayl’s Xbox, Xbox games, and Xbox
controllers were confiscated as he no longer met facility criteria
to possess these items.
13. Offender Yisrayl was issued a confiscation slip and the
property was turned into the offender special purchases
department, where it remains as of today’s date [April 4, 2017].
14. Offender Yisrayl has the opportunity to designate someone
to pick up his confiscated property from the facility through
filling out a disposition form; he has not done so as of today’s
date [April 4, 2017].
Id. at 31-32. On June 21, 2017, the trial court denied Yisrayl’s claim in replevin
and dismissed his complaint, concluding that Yisrayl
was allowed to own the Xbox, Xbox games, and Xbox
controllers while he was on a 90 day probationary period as a
PLUS Aide . . . . However, Xbox, Xbox games and Xbox
2
We believe that “ICH offender” refers to a participant in the DOC’s “Information Clearinghouse” program;
however, it is unclear from the record.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1706-SC-1524 | March 28, 2018 Page 4 of 8
controllers bec[a]me prohibited after Yisrayl ended his
probationary period due to reclassification of his duties.
Id. at 53-54. Yisrayl now appeals.
Analysis
[6] Yisrayl argues that the trial court erred in denying and dismissing his claim.
Where an appellant challenges the entry of judgment after a small claims bench
trial, we generally will not set aside the judgment unless it is clearly erroneous.
Ind. Small Claims Rule 11(A) (providing for “review as prescribed by relevant
Indiana rules and statutes”); Ind. Trial Rule 52(A) (providing that on appeal, a
judgment shall not be set aside where “tried by the court without a jury . . .
unless clearly erroneous”). However, where the judgment “turns solely on
documentary evidence,” we review the judgment “de novo,” as we do with
summary judgment and other cases involving paper records. Eagle Aircraft, Inc.
v. Trojnar, 983 N.E.2d 648, 657 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (emphasis in original)
(quoting Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (Ind. 2006))
(internal quotes omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is
no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). We consider only those materials
designated to the trial court. Young v. Hood’s Gardens, Inc., 24 N.E.3d 421, 424
(Ind. 2015).
[7] Although those convicted of crimes or incarcerated in penal
institutions awaiting trial do not forfeit all personal and property
rights, their property interests may be specially defined and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1706-SC-1524 | March 28, 2018 Page 5 of 8
circumscribed by statute, regulation, or both. Court decisions
have recognized an inherent right of prison administrators to
manage prison facilities according to their discretion and
professional expertise, such as by the imposition of reasonable
restrictions on the type and amount of personal property inmates
may possess and the conditions under which it may be used, and
courts have been reluctant to intrude themselves on the day-to-
day operations of penal facilities. Furthermore, states in
maintaining prisons have a strong interest in preserving security,
order, and discipline therein. Nevertheless it is generally held
that when inmates are afforded the opportunity, whether by
“right” or by “privilege,” to possess personal property within
prison confines, they enjoy a protected interest in it which cannot
be infringed without due process of law. Thus, inmates’ rights
must be balanced against or accommodated to the interests of the
state.
66 A.L.R.4th 800 (Originally published in 1988) (internal footnote omitted).
[8] Our legislature has conferred upon the DOC authority to determine what
property an offender may possess. I.C. § 11-11-2-2.3 When a prison notifies an
offender of what items (s)he may possess, all other property that is not
contraband becomes “prohibited property.” Id. “Contraband” is “property the
possession of which is in violation of an Indiana or federal statute”; and
3
Indiana Code Section 11-11-2-2 provides:
The department shall determine what type of property other than contraband a confined
person may not possess and shall inform him of that classification. In carrying out this
section, the department may inform a confined person of the type or items of property he
is permitted to possess, in which event all other property not contraband is prohibited
property. Property that a confined person is otherwise permitted to possess may become
prohibited property due to the means by which it is possessed or used.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1706-SC-1524 | March 28, 2018 Page 6 of 8
“[p]rohibited property” is “property other than contraband that the [DOC] does
not permit a confined person to possess . . . .” Id. “The [DOC] may conduct
reasonable searches of its facilities and persons confined in them and may seize
contraband or prohibited property.” I.C. § 11-11-2-3(a). When it seizes an
offender’s property, the DOC “shall give . . . written notice of the seizure”
including the date of seizure, identity of the seizing party, grounds for seizure,
and the procedure for challenging the seizure.4 I.C. § 11-11-2-4.
[9] Here, pursuant to the superintendent’s November 2016 directive, Xboxes and
accessories became “prohibited property” for all offenders except PLUS Aides
and ICH offenders; thus, when Yisrayl’s probationary period as a PLUS Aide
ended in his termination, he was no longer among the offenders who were
permitted to possess the items. See I.C. § 11-11-2-3(a) (“Prohibited property” is
“property other than contraband that the department does not permit a
4
Indiana Code Section 11-11-2-4 states,
When the department seizes property, it shall give the affected person written notice of
the seizure. This notice must include the date of the seizure, the property seized, the
name of the person who seized the property, the reason for the seizure, and the fact that
the department’s action may be challenged through the grievance procedure.
When the department seizes property of a confined person that it later determines is
neither contraband nor prohibited property, it shall return the property to that person or
make such other reasonable disposition as directed by that person.
(c) Except as provided in subsection (d) or section 6 of this chapter, when the department
seizes prohibited property, it shall forward the property to a person or address designated
by the confined person or make any other reasonable disposition . . . .
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1706-SC-1524 | March 28, 2018 Page 7 of 8
confined person to possess[.]”). Sgt. Reed seized the Xbox and accessories in
accordance with Indiana Code Section 11-11-2-4, giving Yisrayl written notice
of the grounds of the seizure and advising him of the facility’s grievance
procedure.5 The record further reveals that as of April 4, 2017, Yisrayl’s Xbox
and accessories remained housed in the special purchases department because
Yisrayl had not asked anyone to retrieve them.
[10] In reviewing the designated materials, we conclude that no genuine issue of
material fact exists as to whether an Xbox and accessories were “prohibited
property” for Yisrayl, who was neither a PLUS Aide nor an ICH offender when
Sgt. Reed seized the items. Sgt. Reed is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Conclusion
[11] No genuine issue of material fact exists, and Sgt. Reed is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. We affirm.
Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
5
Yisrayl concedes in his reply brief that he is making no argument that seizure of his property violated the
United States Constitution.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1706-SC-1524 | March 28, 2018 Page 8 of 8