RANDAL L. YOUNG, Appellant-Plaintiff,
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, BRUCE LEMMON, DAVID J. DONAHUE, STANLEY KNIGHT, EDWARD BUSS, THOMAS HANLON, JEFF WRIGLEY, BRIAN SMITH, LEO BORST, JASON GEIGER, CLINT FELDKAMP, SARA YOUNG, JULIE CUNNINGHAM, Appellees-Defendants
APPEAL FROM THE HENDRICKS COURT. The Honorable Mark A. Smith, Judge. Cause No. 32D04-1308-MI-177.
RANDAL L. YOUNG, APPELLANT, Pro se, Indianapolis, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: GREGORY F. ZOELLER, Attorney General of Indiana, KYLE HUNTER, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana.
ROBB, Judge. BAKER, J., and KIRSCH, J., concur.
Case Summary and Issue
Randal Young, who is currently incarcerated in the Indiana Department of Correction (" DOC" ), brought this suit challenging the constitutionality of the DOC's policy concerning the restoration of credit time for inmates. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the DOC, and Young now brings this appeal pro se. Young raises one issue for our review: whether the DOC's policy regarding the restoration of credit time denies equal protection of the law to prisoners serving consecutive sentences. Concluding the DOC's challenged policy does not result in disparate treatment, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Facts and Procedural History
On February 6, 2004, Young was ordered to serve multiple consecutive sentences on seven counts of robbery. See Indiana Offender Database, available at http://www.in.gov/apps/indcorrection/ofs/ofs. According to Young's complaint, during the first three years of his incarceration, he was deprived of 750 days of credit time as a result of various unspecified disciplinary violations. On October 5, 2007, Young filed a petition with the DOC seeking restoration of that credit time. On October 13, 2007, the DOC restored 173 days of credit time to Young. On October 4, 2008, Young filed a second petition for restoration of credit time. However, at that time, Young had begun serving time on a new sentence. Because the credit time he sought to recover was related to a sentence previously completed rather than the sentence he was then serving, his second petition was denied. That denial was based on written DOC policy stating that credit time sought to be restored must be credit time that was deprived during the offender's current sentence.
Subsequently, Young filed this action with the trial court seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging that the DOC's policy concerning restoration of credit time violates the Indiana and federal constitutions' equal protection guarantees. The
DOC filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court granted. ...