Indiana, ex rel. Danny W. Howell, Petitioner v. Circuit Court of Indiana, Wells County, et al.
The Supreme Court declined to take up Howell's case and did not resolve the legal questions he raised.
Case status
- Current stage
- Decided
- Latest event
- Decision released Jan 20, 2026
- What it's about
This case involves a petition for a writ of certiorari and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, likely concerning filing restrictions or bars imposed on an incarcerated litigant.
Question presented
1. Whether the Indiana Tort Claims Act's (ITCA) notice requirements are preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution when applied to federal civil rights claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court. 2. Whether the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity extends to acts performed by judges or court officials that are administrative, ministerial, or taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. 3. Whether the state courts violated the Petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to Due Process and Equal Protection by dismissing constitutional claims on procedural grounds without addressing the underlying merits of the alleged civil rights violations.
- Case path
Supreme Court of Indiana / Decision released Jan 20, 2026
- Area
Civil Rights
Briefing
What it's about
The case asked the justices to review several constitutional questions tied to an Indiana prisoner's civil-rights claims and state-court procedures. But the Supreme Court denied Danny Howell's request to proceed without paying fees and dismissed his petition, so it did not decide the merits of those questions.
Vote
The Court denied Howell's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying filing fees) and dismissed the certiorari petition under Rule 39.8; the prompt also shows Justice Jackson dissenting, but no vote count is provided.
“"The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed."”
Impact
The order leaves the Indiana court result in place and adds filing limits on Howell in future noncriminal Supreme Court matters. That matters to repeat filers, especially incarcerated people, because the Court can block more filings unless fees and formatting rules are followed.
What's next
There is no further action in this Supreme Court docket. For Howell, the lower-court result stands, and any future noncriminal petitions from him must meet the fee and filing rules listed in the Court's order.
What was the main fight in Howell's petition?
He asked the Court to review whether Indiana's procedures and immunity rules blocked his federal civil-rights claims. The justices did not reach those issues.
What are the real-world effects of this order?
Howell's case stays lost in the Indiana courts. He also faces extra limits on future noncriminal Supreme Court filings unless he pays the fee and follows formatting rules.
What happens next procedurally after this Supreme Court order?
Nothing further is scheduled in this docket. Any new noncriminal petition from Howell must satisfy the Court's fee and filing requirements before it will be accepted.
Decision
What the Court decided
The Supreme Court declined to take up Howell's case and did not resolve the legal questions he raised.
Impact
The order leaves the Indiana court result in place and adds filing limits on Howell in future noncriminal Supreme Court matters. That matters to repeat filers, especially incarcerated people, because the Court can block more filings unless fees and formatting rules are followed.
Not official Court text.
Related cases
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Jun 2, 2026
- Method
- Methodology