Sec. 4. The department may not impose the following
as disciplinary action:
(1) Corporal punishment.
(2) Confinement without an opportunity for at least one (1) hour
of exercise five (5) days each week outside of immediate living
quarters, unless the department finds and documents that this
opportunity will jeopardize the physical safety of the offender, or
others, or the security of the facility or program.
(3) A substantial change in heating, lighting, or ventilation.
(4) Restrictions on clothing, bedding, mail, visitation, reading and
writing materials, or the use of hygienic facilities, except for
abuse of these.
(5) Restrictions on:
(A) medical and dental care;
(B) access to courts, unless a committed person has brought a
claim in a state or an administrative court, that the court
determines to be frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless;
(C) access to legal counsel, government officials, or grievance
proceedings; and
(D) access to personal legal papers and legal research materials.
(6) A deviation from the diet provided to other committed persons
in that facility or program.
(7) Extra work exceeding a total of twenty (20) hours for one (1)
rule violation, or exceeding four (4) hours in any twenty-four (24)
hour period.
As added by Acts 1979, P.L.120, SEC.4. Amended by
P.L.146-1995, SEC.1; P.L.43-2002, SEC.2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2022 · leading case:
Zimmerman v. State, 750 N.E.2d 337 (Ind. 2001).
Zimmerman v. State, 750 N.E.2d 337 (Ind. 2001).
· cites it 22× “" Ind.Code 11-11-5-4. The State argues that Zimmerman may not obtain through a request for mandamus the exact same reliefjudicial review of prison disciplinary actionprohibited by Hasty v.”
Blanck v. Ind. Dep't of Corr., 829 N.E.2d 505 (Ind. 2005).
· cites it 8× “*508 In a separate opinion in Zimmerman , Justice Boehm wrote that in his view, a future state court challenge by an inmate to prison discipline might not be subject to dismissal despite the Riner-Adams-Hasty-Zimmerman line of cases because those cases left "open" the following…”
Natalie Medley v. Bruce Lemmon, 994 N.E.2d 1177 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 11× “In sum, the court held that Section 11-11-5-4 did not confer subject matter jurisdiction upon courts to review alleged violations of it.”
Blanck v. Indiana Dep't of Corr., 806 N.E.2d 788 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 13× “The defendant alleged that the DOC's actions were in violation of Indiana law, which only allows restrictions on visitation privileges to be used as discipline for abuse of visitation.”
Daugherty v. State, 466 N.E.2d 46 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “[1] See Indiana Code section 11-11-5-4(1) prohibiting the Indiana Department of Correction imposing corporal punishment as a disciplinary action.”
Chuck W. Adams v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., 48 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “Code § 11-10-1-7 , which requires periodic review of the reasons for segregation of an offender where the DOC has found segregation is necessary for the offender’s safety or the safety of others; (2) Ind. Code § 11-11-5-4 , which prohibits the DOC from using various forms of…”
Floyd William Treece v. State of Indiana, 10 N.E.3d 52 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “) Likewise, Section 11-11-5-4 lists impermissible disciplinary actions and provides, “The [DOC] may not impose the following as disciplinary action.”
Lavelle Malone v. Keith Butts, 974 N.E.2d 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 7× “Ind.Code § 11-11-5-4 provides in part that "The department may not impose the following as disciplinary action: .”
Smith v. McKee, 850 N.E.2d 471 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “One of the sections Blanck cited was Indiana Code § 11-11-5-4, which provides that the Department of Correction may not take certain disciplinary actions, including, among other things, corporal punishment and restrictions on visitation except for abuse thereof.”
Zimmerman v. State, 727 N.E.2d 714 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 6× “He further claims that the DOC has a history of misapplying Indiana Code Section 11-11-5-4 and that the trial court has a history of improperly dismissing such cases.”
Stone-Bey v. Barnes, 913 F. Supp. 1226 (N.D. Ind. 1996).
· cites it 2× “The defendant first claims that under Indiana Code § 11-11-5-4, a prisoner cannot be subjected to certain types of actions as punishment and cannot be deprived of certain minimal conditions or programs.”
Stone v. Aramark Inc, No. 3:20-cv-00428, 2022 WL 124650 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 13, 2022).
· cites it 3× “” Ind. Code § 11-11-5-4 (6). However, Stone does not allege in his amended complaint that he was subjected to disciplinary action.”
Ind. Code § 11-11-5-4(1): 1 case
Daugherty v. State, 466 N.E.2d 46 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984).
“[1] See Indiana Code section 11-11-5-4(1) prohibiting the Indiana Department of Correction imposing corporal punishment as a disciplinary action.”
Ind. Code § 11-11-5-4(4): 4 cases
Zimmerman v. State, 750 N.E.2d 337 (Ind. 2001).
“" Ind.Code 11-11-5-4. The State argues that Zimmerman may not obtain through a request for mandamus the exact same reliefjudicial review of prison disciplinary actionprohibited by Hasty v.”
Natalie Medley v. Bruce Lemmon, 994 N.E.2d 1177 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“In sum, the court held that Section 11-11-5-4 did not confer subject matter jurisdiction upon courts to review alleged violations of it.”
Lavelle Malone v. Keith Butts, 974 N.E.2d 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
“Ind.Code § 11-11-5-4 provides in part that "The department may not impose the following as disciplinary action: .”
Zimmerman v. State, 727 N.E.2d 714 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
“He further claims that the DOC has a history of misapplying Indiana Code Section 11-11-5-4 and that the trial court has a history of improperly dismissing such cases.”
Ind. Code § 11-11-5-4(6): 1 case
Stone v. Aramark Inc, No. 3:20-cv-00428, 2022 WL 124650 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 13, 2022).
“” Ind. Code § 11-11-5-4 (6). However, Stone does not allege in his amended complaint that he was subjected to disciplinary action.”
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.