Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe Department of Correction has a rational reason for limiting which inmates qualify to be housed in a “Honor Unit,” in which they have access to video games and weights, the Indiana Court of Appeals held in affirming summary judgment for the DOC on an inmate’s lawsuit.
Robert Hicks, an inmate at the state prison in Michigan City, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the DOC in August 2014 claiming age discrimination. He wanted to be housed in the Honor Unit, a separate area of prison in which inmates can buy Xbox 360 gaming systems, have more frequent visitors and spend more time outside of their cells. The DOC had required that inmates in the Honor Unit be at least 35 years old, but a year before he filed his suit, changed the requirement to 30 years old. Hicks was at least 30 at the time he filed his suit.
Hicks later told the court that he only sought the same privileges that are attendant to residing in the Honor Unit, and not entry into the Honor Unit, with his lawsuit. The trial court denied his motion for summary judgment and granted the DOC’s motion for summary judgment.
The DOC presented statistics that offenders under the age of 30 violate prison rules at a rate more than twice that of offenders over the age of 30 in nearly every category, thus supporting the age limit for the Honor Unit. And the purpose of the unit is to incentivize and reward good behavior for offenders who are mature, demonstrate good behavior and who are employed, Senior Judge Carr Darden wrote.
“The Appellees have established that the disparate treatment complained of by Hicks bears a rational relation to a legitimate penological interest,” Darden wrote. “Hicks has failed to demonstrate discrimination that was instituted for the purpose of causing adverse effects on the general population of inmates at ISP. The opposite is true; the Honor Unit at ISP … was created to have positive effects on the behavior of the general population.”
The case is Robert Hicks v. Marion Thatcher, in his official capacity as Unit Team Manager, and the Indiana Department of Correction, 49A02-1502-PL-92.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.