Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-1980 | December 31, 2018 Page 1 of 5

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Kevin L. Martin

Carlisle, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Frances Barrow 

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kevin L. Martin,

Appellant-Plaintiff,

v.

Hon. Nancy Vaidik, Charles 

Dugan, Makenzy Gilbert, and 

Greg Pachmayr,

Appellees-Defendants

December 31, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CT-1980

Appeal from the Sullivan Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Robert E.

Hunley, II, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

77C01-1804-CT-283

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-1980 | December 31, 2018 Page 2 of 5

[1] Kevin Martin filed a complaint against a judge of this Court, two employees of 

the Department of Correction (DOC), and the court clerk. Martin now appeals, 

arguing that the trial court erred by dismissing his complaint. Finding no error, 

we affirm.

[2] Martin is currently serving sentences for murder, battery, and battery by bodily 

waste. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his murder conviction 

in St. Joseph County; on December 1, 2017, his petition was denied. On 

December 16, 2017, Martin filed a notice of appeal regarding the denial of his 

petition for post-conviction relief. On January 4, 2018, he unsuccessfully filed

his brief, which had incorrect pagination, lacked page headers, and included 

documents not permitted. Martin filed three other defective briefs on February 

7, March 5, and March 22, 2018.

[3] On March 29, 2018, this Court issued an order that gave Martin a final 

extension to April 13, 2018, to file a brief and appendix free of defects. The 

order advised Martin that failure to comply could result in summary dismissal 

of his appeal. On April 4, 2018, Martin tendered a fifth brief with the same 

defects. On May 1, 2018, this Court ordered the appeal dismissed with 

prejudice because of Martin’s failure to file a defect-free brief and appendix. 

The dismissal order was signed by Chief Judge Vaidik.

[4] On June 6, 2018, Martin filed a complaint in Sullivan County against Chief 

Judge Vaidik, DOC employees Charles Dugan and Makenzy Gilbert, and Greg

Pachmayr, the clerk of the court (collectively, the Appellees). Martin alleged 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-1980 | December 31, 2018 Page 3 of 5

that he gave certain paperwork, which apparently was his brief and a motion for 

a new trial, to Dugan, a facility case worker; that Gilbert, a clerical assistant, 

could corroborate this allegation; that Pachmayr rejected the brief and motion; 

and that Chief Judge Vaidik misused the power of the court and was biased 

against him because he had filed a complaint against her. Martin sought release 

from prison and punitive damages. On July 13, 2018, the Appellees filed a 

motion to dismiss pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1) and (6). On July 13, 

2018, Martin filed an opposing motion. On August 3, 2018, the trial court 

ordered Martin’s complaint dismissed. Martin now appeals.

[5] Martin argues that the trial court erred by dismissing his complaint pursuant to 

Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1) and (6). Trial Rule 12(B)(1) allows for a dismissal 

of a complaint if there is a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We review de 

novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss under Trial Rule 12(B)(1) 

where the facts before the trial court are undisputed. GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 

N.E.2d 397, 401 (Ind. 2001). Trial Rule 12(B)(6) allows for a dismissal of a 

complaint if there is a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

A motion to dismiss under Trial Rule 12(B)(6) “tests the legal sufficiency of a 

complaint: that is, whether the allegations in the complaint establish any set of 

circumstances under which a plaintiff would be entitled to relief.” Lockhart v. 

State, 38 N.E.3d 215, 217 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (internal quotations omitted). 

We apply a de novo standard of review to a trial court’s ruling on a Trial Rule 

12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-1980 | December 31, 2018 Page 4 of 5

[6] As for Martin’s allegations against Dugan and Gilbert, the trial court found that 

no facts were alleged against them on which relief could be granted and that 

they are merely witnesses. We agree. Dugan allegedly mailed paperwork to 

the Court, and Gilbert was a witness who could corroborate that Dugan mailed 

that paperwork. Similarly, Martin alleged that Pachmayr rejected Martin’s 

brief and motion for new trial. Indiana Trial Rule 8(A)(1) requires that a

complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Martin alleged no facts regarding Dugan,

Gilbert, or Pachmayr that could be called a “claim” by which he would be 

entitled to relief. The trial court did not err by dismissing the complaint as it 

related to Dugan and Gilbert.

[7] Regarding Martin’s allegations against Chief Judge Vaidik, the trial court found 

that the judge is immune for the actions alleged in the complaint. “It is wellsettled that judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for all actions taken 

in the judge’s judicial capacity, unless those actions are taken in the complete 

absence of any jurisdiction.” Droscha v. Shepherd, 931 N.E.2d 882, 888-89 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2010). Judicial immunity serves “to preserve judicial independence in 

the decision-making process.” Id. at 889. A judicial officer is immune even 

when the action she took was in error or outside her authority. Newman v. 

Deiter, 702 N.E.2d 1093, 1098 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). It seems that Martin 

alleges that Chief Judge Vaidik misused the power of the court and was biased 

against him. We note that Martin offers no facts to substantiate his allegation. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-1980 | December 31, 2018 Page 5 of 5

Regardless, Chief Judge Vaidik has judicial immunity. The trial court did not 

err by dismissing the complaint as it related to Chief Judge Vaidik.

[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

May, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.