Filed Date: May 16, 2013
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
An Indiana Department of Corrections prisoner filed this class action lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on May 16, 2013. The plaintiff, who was previously convicted of a sex offense but has maintained his innocence since, alleged that the Indiana Department of Corrections has made it mandatory for all convicted sex offenders to participate in the Indiana Sex Offender Management and Monitoring (INSOMM) program. The INSOMM program requires participants admit their misconduct as part of a plan of therapy. Participants must admit not only the crimes of which they have been convicted but also all other sexual misconduct, including acts that still could be prosecuted which the plaintiff argued violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The plaintiff alleged that refusing to participate in the INSOMM program resulted in reports of his conduct, segregation, loss of privileges at the prison, and loss of good-time credit towards early release.
On September 11, 2013, District Judge Richard L. Young dismissed this case for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Judge Young relied on Entzi v. Redmann, 485 F.3d 998, 1004 (8th Cir. 2007), which he interpreted to hold that a state's exercise of discretion over a prisoner's release (such as a good-time credit program) does not make self-accusation compulsory.
The plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing that Indiana's good-time credit program is not discretionary, since prisoners are entitled to credits unless they misbehave. On May 29, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an order vacating the judgment and remanding the case with further instructions. 564 F. App'x 844 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court of Appeals held that it was not necessary to rule on whether the good-time credit program was mandatory since the much of the relief the plaintiff was seeking is not available under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 instead. The Court of Appeals instructed the District Judge to ask the plaintiff whether he was willing to have the suit treated as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Otherwise, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff's case should be dismissed. The plaintiff entered his order of agreement pursuant to the Court of Appeal's order on June 2, 2014, thus continuing this lawsuit.
On October 23, 2014, the District Court consolidated five additional cases with the plaintiff's case, and an attorney from the Indiana Federal Community Defenders was appointed to represent the plaintiffs.
On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and a motion for preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining the Indiana Department of Corrections from continuing to compel the plaintiffs' participation in INSOMM. On September 30, 2015, Judge Young granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification, defined as "[a]ll persons incarcerated in the Indiana Department of Correction who have been asked to participate in the Indiana Sex Offender Management Program, who have refused to participate because they refuse to confess guilt on the primary offense or disclose other criminal conduct as required by the INSOMM program, and who have been subjected to disciplinary action in the form of lost credit time and/or demotion in credit class as a result." Judge Young also denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction as moot, allowing the plaintiffs to file a new consolidated motion for preliminary injunction in light of the court's class certification order.
Over the next two years, parties engaged in discovery. Plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment on July 10, 2017. Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on August 31. The court (Judge Young) granted plaintiffs' motion, and the class petition for habeas corpus, on September 28, 2017. The judgment required the Indiana Department of Corrections to vacate any disciplinary proceedings and sanctions of any member of the class based on their refusal to participate in the INSOMM program, and to establish a new projected release date for each class member.
Defendant appealed the summary judgment on October 30, 2017 to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal (Docket No. 17-03256) was argued before the Seventh Circuit on October 26, 2018, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision on April 25, 2019. Judge Diane Wood, joined by Judges Diane S. Sykes and Michael Y. Scudder, found that the INSOMM program compelled self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment because it forced prisoners to either admit to past crimes or lose eligibility for early release. 922 F.3d 371.
In early 2020, the plaintiffs requested a status conference to help them identify class members and determine the relief to which each class member is entitled. The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
John He (10/7/2015)
Elizabeth Heise (10/28/2018)
Timothy Leake (1/17/2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5140638/parties/lacy-v-state-of-indiana/
Easterbrook, Frank Hoover (Illinois)
Lynch, Debra McVicker (Indiana)
Beitz, Gwendolyn M. (Indiana)
Ciobanu, Andrea Lynn (Indiana)
Barrow, Frances Hale (Indiana)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5140638/lacy-v-state-of-indiana/
Last updated April 9, 2025, 10:21 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Multi-LexSum (in sample)
Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 16, 2013
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Individuals incarcerated in the Indiana Department of Corrections who have a prior sex offense conviction, who have been, or will be asked to participate in the Indiana Sex Offender Management Program (INSOMM), and who have, or will refuse to participate because they refuse to confess guilt on the primary offense or disclose other criminal conduct as required by the INSOMM program.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Indiana Department of Corrections (Indianapolis, Marion), State
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Indiana 1:13-cv-00811
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 13-03173
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 17-03256
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Preliminary relief request withdrawn/mooted
Issues
General/Misc.:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions: