APPELLANT PRO SE:

SERVANES J. WILSON

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

SERVANES J. WILSON, SR., )

)

Appellant, )

)

 vs. ) No. 77A05-1309-PL-476

)

WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL )

FACILITY and INDIANA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTION, )

)

Appellee. )

APPEAL FROM THE SULLIVAN SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Robert E. Springer, Judge

Cause No. 77D01-1308-PL-457

September 24, 2014

MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MATHIAS, Judge 

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of 

establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
2

SerVanes Wilson (“Wilson”), an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional 

Facility, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint against the Indiana 

Department of Correction and the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. Finding no error, 

we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

In October 2010, Wilson was convicted by a jury of Class A felony dealing in 

cocaine and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Wilson was ordered to serve 

concurrent sentences of twenty years for the dealing in cocaine conviction and thirty days 

for the possession of marijuana conviction. Wilson filed a direct appeal of his 

convictions, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain items 

into evidence and that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his 

convictions. This court issued an opinion affirming Wilson’s convictions on July 1, 2011. 

See Wilson v. State, No. 49A02-1012-CR-1288, slip op. (Ind. Ct. App. July 1, 2011). 

On July 17, 2012, Wilson filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Wilson’s postconviction counsel withdrew her appearance on November 20, 2012 and notified Wilson 

that his post-conviction hearing was set for March 15, 2013 and that he would need to 

proceed pro se. 

Beginning on November 21, 2012, Wilson attempted to access legal materials on 

the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility’s computer-based law library system to prepare 

a motion for summary disposition before its deadline of December 14, 2012. However, 

apparently because of a computer system malfunction, Wilson was unable to access any 

legal materials. Wilson contacted several Wabash Valley Correctional Facility staff 
3

members, including correctional officers, a casework manager, a unit counselor, and the 

facility superintendent, requesting access to the legal materials. When his requests were 

denied or ignored, he contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, which 

notified him that it would not be able to evaluate his claim for several weeks. 

On February 4, 2013, Wilson filed a motion for continuance with the postconviction court. The court granted his motion on February 12, 2013, rescheduling the 

deadline for the filing of Wilson’s motion for summary disposition to May 14, 2013 and 

his post-conviction hearing from March 15, 2013 to August 16, 2013.

On March 4, 2013, Wilson filed a complaint in Sullivan Circuit Court against the 

Indiana Department of Correction and the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, alleging 

the violation of his First Amendment right of access to the courts. Three days later, on 

March 7, 2013, Wilson’s access to the prison law library was restored. About one month 

after Wilson filed his complaint, on April 5, 2013, the trial court issued an order 

dismissing Wilson’s complaint without prejudice, finding that the complaint was 

“frivolous in that it does not have an arguable basis in the law and does not state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted” because (1) Wilson failed to comply with the Indiana 

Tort Claims Act; (2) Wilson failed to pay a filing fee; and (3) Wilson failed to prove that 

he exhausted his administrative remedies before filing his complaint. Appellant’s App. p. 

27. 

On April 24, 2013, Wilson filed a tort claim with the Indiana Attorney General’s 

office, the Indiana Department of Correction Tort Claims Administrator, and the Wabash 
4

Valley Correctional Facility. 1 Then, on August 22, 2013, Wilson filed a second 

complaint with the trial court, alleging the violation of his First Amendment right of 

access to the courts. The following day, August 23, 2013, the trial court issued an order 

dismissing Wilson’s complaint with prejudice. In its order, the trial court found again 

that Wilson’s claim was “frivolous in that it does not have an arguable basis in the law 

and may not state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Appellant’s App. p. 36. 

Wilson now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

Wilson argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint. Our supreme 

court has held:

A defendant who chooses to proceed pro se must accept the burdens and 

hazards incidental to his position. In Engle v. State (1984), Ind., 467 

N.E.2d 712, the defendant argued the trial court erred in denying his 

request for direct access to a law library. We found that his right of access 

to the court had not been undermined because he had access to legal 

materials and legal assistance through his standby counsel.

Jenkins v. State, 492 N.E.2d 666, 668 (Ind. 1986) (internal citations omitted).

Here, during a temporary lack of access to the prison’s computerized law library

system, Wilson sought and received a continuance from the trial court. His access to the 

law library was restored over a month before the deadline for the filing of his petition for 

summary disposition and over five months before his post-conviction evidentiary

hearing, giving him ample opportunity to access the library to prepare his materials. Like 

the defendant in Engle, Wilson’s access to legal materials was not undermined in such a 

 1

 Although the record is unclear, it appears that Wilson’s tort claim was deemed denied when it was not 

processed after ninety days. See Ind. Code § 34-13-3-11.
5

way as to cause him prejudice. See Higgason v. State, 789 N.E.2d 22 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2003) (holding that the trial court properly grants a motion to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim if it is apparent that the facts alleged in the complaint are incapable of supporting 

relief under any set of circumstances; appellate court sustains the trial court’s ruling if it 

can affirm on any basis found in the record).

Conclusion

Because Wilson’s access to the prison law library was restored over a month

before the deadline for his petition for summary disposition and over five months before 

his post-conviction hearing, he cannot claim that the trial court erred in dismissing his 

complaint against the Indiana Department of Correction and the Wabash Valley 

Correctional Facility.

Affirmed.

RILEY, J., and CRONE, J., concur.