Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2595 | July 19, 2019 Page 1 of 6

APPELLANT PRO SE

Kevin Martin

Carlisle, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Abigail R. Recker

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kevin Martin,

Appellant-Plaintiff,

v.

Hon. Hugh Hunt, et al.,

Appellee-Defendants

July 19, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CT-2595

Appeal from the Sullivan Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Christopher A. 

Newton, Special Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

77C01-1804-CT-166

May, Judge.

[1] Kevin Martin appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his complaint against 

the Honorable Hugh Hunt, individually and in his personal capacity; Sullivan 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2595 | July 19, 2019 Page 2 of 6

Circuit Court Clerk Peggy Goodman; and Indiana Department of Correction 

(“DOC”) employees Brenda Hinton and Charles Dugan (collectively, 

“Defendants”). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 11, 2018, Martin filed a complaint against Defendants alleging various 

violations of his due process rights stemming from an incident involving DOC 

librarian Hinton and a disagreement regarding a copying request Martin made.

Martin requested he be released from prison as a result of his pain and suffering 

in the matter. In July 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On August 

27, 2018, Martin filed leave to file an amended complaint, which the trial court 

treated as an amended complaint.

[3] On August 29, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended 

complaint, arguing Judge Hunt had judicial immunity; the court lacked 

jurisdiction to release Martin from prison as requested; the same case was 

pending before the Indiana Court of Appeals; and the action was contrary to 

public policy. On October 4, 2018, the trial court granted Defendants’ motion 

to dismiss finding it lacked jurisdiction to release Martin from prison; Judge 

Hunt was judicially immune from the actions alleged in Martin’s complaint; the 

same case was pending before the Indiana Supreme Court on a petition to 

transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals; and “[b]ecause the plaintiff is 

engaging in serial litigation, suing those involved in orders in previous cases 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2595 | July 19, 2019 Page 3 of 6

with which he does not agree, this action is contrary to public policy and must, 

for that reason, be dismissed.” (Appellees’ App. Vol. II at 37.)

Discussion and Decision

[4] As an initial matter, we note Martin appeared before the trial court and in this 

appeal pro se. 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. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. 

Fatal to Martin’s appeal is his non-compliance with several sections of Indiana 

Appellate Rule 46, which has also been the reason for dismissal or waiver of 

issues in several other appeals Martin has filed. See Martin v. Howe, et. al., 18ACT-680, 2018 WL 5956300 (Ind. Ct. App. November 14, 2018) (dismissal of 

appeal based, in part, on Martin’s failure to make a cogent argument), trans. 

denied; Martin v. Brown, et. al., 18A-CT-2940, 2019 WL 1217796 (Ind. Ct. App. 

March 15, 2019) (affirmed dismissal of complaint based on violations of 

Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure), trans. denied; Martin v. Gilbert, et. al., 

18A-CT-2095, 20149 WL 2363327 (Ind. Ct. App. June 5, 2019) (affirmed 

dismissal of complaint based on violations of Indiana Rules of Appellate 

Procedure), trans. pending. 

[5] Specifically, Martin’s appellate brief did not include a Statement of the Case or 

a Statement of the Facts, both of which are required pursuant to Indiana 

Appellate Rule 46(A)(5) and Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(6) respectively. In 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2595 | July 19, 2019 Page 4 of 6

addition, his brief includes several violations of Indiana Appellate Rules

46(A)(8)(a)-(b), which require, in relevant part:

(8) Argument. This section shall contain the appellant's 

contentions why the trial court or Administrative Agency 

committed reversible error.

(a) The argument must contain the contentions of the 

appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent 

reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations 

to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of 

the Record on Appeal relied on, in accordance with Rule 

22.

(b) The argument must include for each issue a concise 

statement of the applicable standard of review; this 

statement may appear in the discussion of each issue or 

under a separate heading placed before the discussion of 

the issues. In addition, the argument must include a brief 

statement of the procedural and substantive facts necessary 

for consideration of the issues presented on appeal, 

including a statement of how the issues relevant to the 

appeal were raised and resolved by any Administrative 

Agency or trial court.

[6] Failure to present a cogent argument results in waiver of the issue on appeal. 

Hollowell v. State, 707 N.E.2d 1014, 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). Martin has not 

provided a cogent argument, citation to relevant legal precedent, citation to 

pages in the record, or sufficient statement of facts and procedural history for us 

to consider his appeal. His brief is hand written and barely legible in some 

areas. His arguments often do not focus on the trial court’s order and instead 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2595 | July 19, 2019 Page 5 of 6

allege misconduct by the Defendants that is unrelated and not in the record 

before us. Finally, he harkens to other cases long ago decided by this court and 

the trial court, with no real explanation as to the relevance thereof.

[7] While failure to comply with the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure does 

not necessarily result in waiver of a claim,1 waiver is appropriate when, as here, 

the violation of those rules substantially impedes our review of the issues 

alleged. In re Moeder, 27 N.E.3d 1089, 1097 n.4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. 

denied. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint. 2

 

1 We note the judiciary’s commitment to open access of courts to all litigants, as is evidenced in a recent 

amendment to Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.2 (May 16, 2019), which states, in relevant part, “A 

judge shall uphold and apply the law and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially. A 

judge may make reasonable efforts, consistent with the law and court rules, to facilitate the ability of all 

litigants, including self-represented litigants, to be heard.” The Comments to the Rule give a more specific 

explanation of possible reasonable efforts:

[5] A judge’s responsibility to promote access to justice, especially in cases involving selfrepresented litigants, may warrant the exercise of discretion by using techniques that 

enhance the process of reaching a fair determination in the case. Although the 

appropriate scope of such discretion and how it is exercised will vary with the 

circumstances of each case, a judge’s exercise of such discretion will not generally raise a 

reasonable question about the judge’s impartiality. Reasonable steps that a judge may 

take, but in no way is required to take, include:

(a) Construe pleadings to facilitate consideration of issues raised.

Unfortunately, as indicated supra, the deficiencies in Martin’s brief are so numerous and egregious that we are 

unable to ascertain his argument.

2 We bring to the attention of the parties and the lower court Indiana Code section 34-10-1-3, which states: 

If an offender has filed at least three (3) civil actions in which a state court has dismissed 

the action or a claim under IC 34-58-1-2, the offender may not file a new complaint or 

petition as an indigent person under this chapter, unless a court determines the offender is 

in immediate danger of serious bodily injury.

Indiana Code section 34-58-1-2 states, in relevant part:

(a) A court shall review a complaint or petition filed by an offender and shall determine if 

the claim may proceed. A claim may not proceed if the court determines that the claim:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2595 | July 19, 2019 Page 6 of 6

Conclusion

[8] Based on Martin’s multiple violations of the Indiana Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, we are unable to ascertain his argument in this matter, and thus any 

issues he has attempted to present are waived. We affirm the decision of the 

trial court.

[9] Affirmed.

Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.

 

(1) is frivolous;

(2) is not a claim upon which relief may be granted; or

(3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from liability for such 

relief.

(b) A claim is frivolous under subsection (a)(1) if the claim:

(1) is made primarily to harass a person; or

(2) lacks an arguable basis either in:

(A) law; or

(B) fact.

Here, Martin has filed several cases which the trial court dismissed based on the factors set forth in Indiana 

Code section 34-58-1-2. See. e.g., Gilbert, slip op. at 1, n.1 (trial court dismissed Martin’s action as frivolous); 

Martin v. Sanford, et. al., 71C01-1711-CT-000523 (December 18, 2017) (trial court dismissed Martin’s action 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted); and Martin v. Kawecki, et. al, 71C01-1711-

CT-000508 (May 17, 2018) (Martin’s complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

could be granted).