Sec. 2. The commissioner shall implement a
departmental procedure in which a committed person may submit
grievances arising out of the administrative acts of the department that
affect that person. Although the procedure should encourage flexibility
and informality in the resolution of grievances, it must be consistent
with the following minimum requirements:
(1) A committed person shall be informed of the grievance
procedure as part of his orientation.
(2) The department must periodically communicate to a
committed person the rules and policies affecting him.
(3) The department shall keep the person reasonably informed as
to the status and ultimate disposition of his grievance.
(4) The department may not undertake any act or practice that
would discipline a person for, or otherwise discourage or limit
him from, utilizing the grievance procedure.
As added by Acts 1979, P.L.120, SEC.4.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2023 · leading case:
Samuels v. State, 849 N.E.2d 689 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Samuels v. State, 849 N.E.2d 689 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 8× “Samuels does not contend that submitting his claim to the grievance procedures of the DOC, as contemplated by Indiana Code § 11-11-1-2 (Burns Code Ed. Repl.”
Members v. State, 851 N.E.2d 979 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “In particular, Indiana Code Section 11-11-1-2 provides: The commissioner shall implement a departmental procedure in which a committed person may submit grievances arising out of the administrative acts of the department that affect that person.”
William H. Ellis, Sr. v. State of Indiana, 58 N.E.3d 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “(citing Ind.Code § 11-11-1-2). “When educational credit time is denied, a person must exhaust his administrative remedies within the DOC before appealing to a court because determinations altering credit time are the responsibility of the DOC.”
Higgason v. Indiana Dep't of Corr., 883 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Code 3 -1-15(h) (2004); Ind.Code § 11-11-1-2 (2004). Conclusion The order dismissing Higgason's claim under the Three Strikes Law is reversed.”
Higgason v. Indiana Dep't of Corr., 883 N.E.2d 812 (Ind. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Code 3 -1-15(h) (2004); Ind.Code § 11-11-1-2 (2004). Conclusion The order dismissing Higgason's claim under the Three Strikes Law is reversed.”
Mayberry v. Gilbert, No. 1:21-cv-03031 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 3, 2023).
· cites it 3× “First, Indiana Code § 11-11-1-2(4) states, "The department may not undertake any act or practice that would discipline a person for, or otherwise discourage or limit him from, utilizing the grievance procedure.”
Kelubai v. Henrich, 98 F. App'x 550 (7th Cir. 2004).
“Indiana has a prison grievance system in place, see Ind.Code § 11-11-1-2, but Kelubai did not avail himself of this process until three months after he filed this suit, which was too late.”
Ind. Code § 11-11-1-2(2004): 1 case
Higgason v. Indiana Dep't of Corr., 883 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. 2008).
“Code 3 -1-15(h) (2004); Ind.Code § 11-11-1-2 (2004). Conclusion The order dismissing Higgason's claim under the Three Strikes Law is reversed.”
Ind. Code § 11-11-1-2(4): 1 case
Mayberry v. Gilbert, No. 1:21-cv-03031 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 3, 2023).
“First, Indiana Code § 11-11-1-2(4) states, "The department may not undertake any act or practice that would discipline a person for, or otherwise discourage or limit him from, utilizing the grievance procedure.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.