Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 56A03-1508-SC-1142 | January 29, 2016 Page 1 of 8

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

Anthony Fisher

Pendleton, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Anthony Fisher,

Appellant-Plaintiff,

v.

Thomas VanVleet and 

Dustin Gary,

Appellees-Defendants

January 29, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

56A03-1508-SC-1142

Appeal from the Newton County 

Circuit Court

The Honorable Jeryl F. Leach, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

56C01-1501-SC-6

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 56A03-1508-SC-1142 | January 29, 2016 Page 2 of 8

Case Summary

[1] Pro se Appellant-Plaintiff Anthony Fisher (“Fisher”) appeals a small claims 

judgment in favor of Appellees-Defendants Thomas VanVleet and Dustin Gary

upon Fisher’s replevin claim. We affirm. 

Issues

[2] Fisher presents two issues for review, which we restate as the following issues:

I. Whether the claim was improperly dismissed because 

Fisher’s Third Request for Extension of Time was deemed 

to be untimely filed; and

II. Whether he was entitled to a third continuance of the 

small claims proceedings.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In January of 2009, Fisher and James Daher (“Daher”) were arrested in St. 

Joseph County, Indiana, after having escaped imprisonment in Newton 

County, Indiana. Incident to the arrests, Newton County Sheriff’s Sergeant 

Dustin Gary (“Sergeant Gary”) recovered two cell phones and $7,000.00 in 

cash. On January 26, 2015, Fisher filed a small claim against Sergeant Gary 

and Sheriff Thomas VanVleet for replevin of $6,000.00, the limit of small claims 

jurisdiction.

[4] On February 9, 2015, Fisher – who remained incarcerated – filed a motion in 

the small claims court seeking approval for a trial by affidavit or electronic or 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 56A03-1508-SC-1142 | January 29, 2016 Page 3 of 8

telephonic means. The small claims court ordered that the matter proceed by 

affidavit. Fisher was ordered to submit evidence to the small claims court by 

February 24, 2015, but was granted leave to file additional materials responsive 

to the defendants’ submissions, up until March 10, 2015.

[5] On February 23, 2015, Fisher filed his “submission of evidence” in the small 

claims court. (App. at 2.) On February 26, 2015, the defendants filed a joint 

submission of evidence. A “summary” signed by Sergeant Gary stated that a 

check for $7,000.00 had been issued to Daher. (App. at 20.)

[6] On March 9, 2015, Fisher filed a motion for a continuance. The request was 

granted, with Fisher allowed an additional sixty days to respond to the 

defendants’ submission. On March 13, 2015, Fisher filed a motion seeking a 

trial transcript of a “related case.” (App. at 2.) According to Fisher, a 

transcript of Daher’s criminal trial would reveal that the money belonged to 

Fisher. On April 6, 2015, Fisher requested this transcript at public expense.

[7] On April 10, 2015, the small claims court denied Fisher’s claim and purportedly 

“dismissed” the case. (App. at 2.) Fisher filed a motion to reconsider, pointing 

out that the small claims court had not ruled upon his motion for a transcript. 

In response, the small claims court set aside its judgment. On April 27, 2015, 

the small claims court denied Fisher’s request for the Daher transcript,1 but 

 

1

Fisher was directed to make his transcript request in the Newton County Superior Court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 56A03-1508-SC-1142 | January 29, 2016 Page 4 of 8

granted Fisher time up to and including May 11, 2015 to respond to the 

defendants’ submission of evidence. 

[8] On May 11, 2015, Fisher filed an additional request for an extension of time to 

submit his proof by affidavit. On May 13, 2015, the small claims court granted 

Fisher “an additional sixty days.” (App. at 3.) On May 21, 2015, Fisher filed a 

motion in the Newton County Superior Court seeking the Daher transcript. 

[9] On July 13, 2015, Fisher filed his third motion for an extension of time to 

submit his proof by affidavit. He advised that he was “in the process of 

purchasing the transcript from the Indiana Court of Appeals.” (App. at 29.) 

On the same day, the small claims court entered an order providing:

The deadlines for pleadings in this case have passed. The Court 

finds that the Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of proof. 

The Defendants acted appropriately pursuant to a court order 

regarding the funds at issue in this case and have no liability 

under this case.

Plaintiff[’s] claim is denied and dismissed this 13th day of July, 

2015.

(App. at 5.) This appeal ensued. 

Discussion and Decision

Standard of Review

[10] Indiana Small Claims Rule 8(A) provides:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 56A03-1508-SC-1142 | January 29, 2016 Page 5 of 8

The trial shall be informal, with the sole objective of dispensing 

speedy justice between the parties according to the rules of 

substantive law, and shall not be bound by the statutory 

provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleadings or evidence 

except provisions relating to privileged communications and 

offers of compromise.

[11] Accordingly, appellate review of a small claims decision is particularly 

deferential. Morton v. Ivacic, 898 N.E.2d 1196, 1199 (Ind. 2008). Generally, we 

review factual determinations for clear error and review questions of law de 

novo. Id. However, where a small claims case turns solely on documentary 

evidence, we review de novo, just as we review summary judgment rulings and 

other paper records. Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (Ind. 

2006).

[12] We note that the defendant officers have not filed an appellee’s brief. When the 

appellee fails to submit a brief, we need not undertake the appellee’s burden of 

responding to arguments that are advanced for reversal by the appellant. 

Hamiter v. Torrence, 717 N.E.2d 1249, 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). Rather, we 

may reverse the trial court if the appellant makes a prima facie case of error. Id. 

“Prima facie” is defined as “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of 

it.” Id. Still, we are obligated to correctly apply the law to the facts in the 

record in order to determine whether reversal is required. Id.

Timeliness of Filing

[13] Fisher asserts that his third motion for an extension of time was timely filed and 

thus challenges the small claims court’s statement: “The deadlines for 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 56A03-1508-SC-1142 | January 29, 2016 Page 6 of 8

pleadings in this case have passed.” (App. at 5.) The timeliness argument 

appears to be based upon the premise that the small claims court dismissed the 

claim for failure to comply with the deadline for submission of responsive 

materials.

[14] However, although the small claims court used the word “dismissed” in 

conjunction with the word “denied,” the substance of the order indicates that 

the small claims court adjudicated the claim on its merits. (App. at 5.) Fisher

filed a motion rather than an evidentiary submission addressed by the prior 

continuance order; the small claims court did not deem the motion an untimely 

pleading; and the matter was not dismissed.

Third Motion for a Continuance 

[15] Fisher asserts that he has a constitutional right to bring a civil action and that 

the denial of his third motion for a continuance denied him due process. Fisher 

correctly observes that a prisoner has a constitutional right to bring a civil 

action, pursuant to Article 1, § 12 of the Indiana Constitution: “[a]ll courts 

shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property 

or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.”

[16] Implicit in the right to bring a civil claim is the right to present the claim in 

court. Zimmerman v. Hanks, 766 N.E.2d 752, 757-58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). 

Avenues available include such procedures as submission by documentary 

evidence, trial by telephonic conference, representation by counsel, and 

postponement until release from incarceration. Hill v. Duckworth, 679 N.E.2d 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 56A03-1508-SC-1142 | January 29, 2016 Page 7 of 8

938, 940 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). Here, Fisher was afforded the opportunity to 

submit his claim by affidavit.

[17] The crux of Fisher’s argument is that he was entitled to a third continuance as a 

matter of due process. He suggests that a small claims court must grant 

repetitive motions for continuances so long as the small claims litigant is “duly 

diligent” in pursuing his proof. (Appellant’s Br. at 5.) This assertion is not in 

accordance with the Indiana Small Claims Rules.

[18] Indiana Small Claims Rule 9 governs continuances, and provides that either 

party may be granted a continuance for good cause shown. Moreover, 

“[e]xcept in unusual circumstances no party shall be allowed more than one (1) 

continuance in any case, and all continuances must have the specific approval 

of the court.” S.C.R. 9(A). We review the small claims court’s ruling on a 

motion for a continuance for an abuse of discretion. Multivest Props. V. Hughes, 

671 N.E.2d 199, 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).

[19] Here, the small claims court had granted Fisher two continuances. By the time 

of Fisher’s third motion, he did not represent that he had obtained relevant 

materials and needed time to review and present them. Rather, he asserted that 

he was attempting to procure a transcript through an appellate court. Given the 

history of multiple continuances and the posture of the case, we cannot say that 

the trial court abused its discretion. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 56A03-1508-SC-1142 | January 29, 2016 Page 8 of 8

Conclusion

[20] Fisher has demonstrated no reversible error in the small claims court decision.

[21] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.