Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-PL-554 | March 22, 2024 Page 1 of 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not 

binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value 

or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.

IN THE

Court of Appeals of Indiana

Kevin Martin,

Appellant-Plaintiff

v.

Marley Hancock, et al.,

Appellees-Defendants

March 22, 2024

Court of Appeals Case No.

23A-PL-554

Appeal from the LaPorte Superior Court

The Honorable Michael A. Fish, Special Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

46D02-2008-PL-1407

Memorandum Decision by Judge May

Judges Bailey and Felix concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-PL-554 | March 22, 2024 Page 2 of 6

May, Judge.

[1] Kevin Martin appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint against Deputy 

Attorney General Marley G. Hancock and St. Joseph County Clerk Terri 

Rethlake. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History 

[2] On August 12, 2020, Martin filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 

1983 against Hancock and Rethlake. Therein, as best as we can ascertain, 

Martin alleged he was deprived of certain rights as part of a July 2020 

deposition Hancock conducted because correctional officers were present 

during that deposition. Additionally, Martin asserted he was treated differently 

in some way than two other prisoners were treated during depositions. He 

claimed this treatment was retaliation for a complaint Martin filed against 

Hancock with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. Martin 

further argued Hancock and Rethlake were engaged in a conspiracy against 

him, though the nature of that conspiracy was not clear. Martin asked the trial 

court to award him $500,000.00 in damages and an injunction to have Hancock 

removed from all of Martin’s cases. Martin filed an incomplete summons for 

Hancock, so the State never received the summons.

[3] In April 2021, Martin filed a motion for default judgment against Hancock. 

The trial court scheduled a hearing on Martin’s request for November 23, 2021. 

The hearing ultimately was not held, but the parties and court discussed the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-PL-554 | March 22, 2024 Page 3 of 6

case. That discussion seems to have been off the record, though Martin 

indicated in a subsequent filing that the State asked the trial court to dismiss the 

case because it had not received a summons but to allow Martin the ability to 

refile his complaint and complete service on the State.1

 In December 2021, 

Martin filed another incomplete summons, although it seems that summons 

was delivered to the State at some point.

[4] On December 20, 2022, the State appeared on Hancock’s behalf. On January 

23, 2023, Martin filed another motion for default judgment in the case. On 

February 3, 2023, the State filed a motion asking the trial court to screen 

Martin’s complaint pursuant to Indiana’s Frivolous Claim Law, which requires 

the trial court to consider whether Martin’s claim was frivolous, a claim upon 

which no relief can be granted, or a claim that “seeks monetary relief from a 

defendant that is immune from liability for such relief.” Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2. 

The State alleged Martin was “an abusive filer in Indiana courts” and a search 

of online court records revealed he had “a long history of making baseless 

accusations toward the judges[.]” (App. Vol. II at 29.) Additionally, the State 

asked the trial court to dismiss Martin’s complaint under Trial Rules 12(B)(2), 

(4), (5), and (6). On February 7, 2023, the trial court dismissed Martin’s claims 

with prejudice after “having considered [the States’s] motion and all applicable 

filings[.]” (Id. at 15.) 

1 The State did not argue this characterization of the discussion with the trial court is incorrect.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-PL-554 | March 22, 2024 Page 4 of 6

Discussion and Decision 

[5] As an initial matter, we note Martin proceeds pro se. As we noted in one of our 

earlier opinions involving Martin, “it is well settled that pro se litigants are held 

to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and thus they are required to follow 

procedural rules.” Martin v. Brown, 129 N.E.3d 283, 284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)

(internal italics omitted). Pro se litigants who do not follow established rules of 

procedure “must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do 

so.” Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (internal 

citations omitted), reh’g denied.

[6] Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) requires an appellant’s brief to contain 

“contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent 

reasoning.” Here, we are unable to ascertain Martin’s argument regarding the 

trial court’s dismissal of his complaint under Indiana Code section 34-58-1-2. 

He seems to complain of a lack of light in his cell at the Westville Correctional 

Facility, which he claims caused significant vision problems rendering him 

unable to properly review legal materials or write. Additionally, he alleges the 

trial court judge, Judge Michael Fish, committed some sort of misconduct. 

Finally, he contends a guard at the Westville Correctional Facility

discriminated against him based on his race. While he claims he is appealing 

the trial court’s order dismissing his complaint, he makes little argument 

regarding that specific issue. His brief is handwritten and barely legible in some 

areas. We cannot understand why he is challenging the trial court’s dismissal 

of his claim or what case law might support any claim he may have. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-PL-554 | March 22, 2024 Page 5 of 6

[7] While we prefer to decide cases on their merits, alleged errors are waived when

an appellant’s noncompliance with the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure is 

so substantial it impedes our appellate consideration of the errors. Perry v. 

Anonymous Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. 

denied. Here, we are unable to determine whether any of Martin’s arguments 

have merit because they are so unintelligible. Moreover, none of his assertions 

on appeal seem to address the viability of the complaint dismissed by the trial 

court. Therefore, his egregious violation of Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a)

substantially impedes our review of any issues he attempts to raise and thus 

waives the issues he purports to present from our review. See, e.g., Martin v. 

Hunt, 130 N.E.3d 135, 138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (issue waived for violations of 

Indiana Appellate Rules to the extent that we were unable to ascertain Martin’s 

argument).

Conclusion 

[8] As Martin has not presented a cogent argument, any issues he attempted to 

present on appeal are waived. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal 

of his claims.

[9] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Felix, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-PL-554 | March 22, 2024 Page 6 of 6

APPELLANT PRO SE

Kevin Martin

Pendleton Correctional Facility

Pendleton, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Theodore E. Rokita

Indiana Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

David E. Corey

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana