Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-955 | February 5, 2019 Page 1 of 13

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

Corey Hamersley

Sheridan, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTION

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Frances H. Barrow

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

AMERICAN BROADCASTING 

COMPANY, INC.

Steven M. Badger

Kara M. Kapke

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana

Nathan Siegel

Alison Schary

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Washington, District of Columbia
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-955 | February 5, 2019 Page 2 of 13

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Corey Hamersley,

Appellant-Plaintiff,

v.

Indiana Department of 

Correction, and American 

Broadcasting Company, Inc.,

Appellees-Defendants.

February 5, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-PL-955

Appeal from the Madison Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Mark Dudley, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

48C06-1704-PL-33

Shepard, Senior Judge.

[1] Corey Hamersley appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit against the Indiana 

Department of Correction (DOC) and the American Broadcasting Company, 

Inc. (ABC). Concluding that the trial court correctly dismissed, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] While incarcerated on unrelated charges, Hamersley was interviewed by former 

FBI agent Brad Garrett and investigator Bill Benjamin regarding the June 3, 

2011 disappearance of Indiana University student Lauren Spierer. The 

interview was recorded, and a portion of it was included in a report called 

“Looking for Lauren,” which ABC aired on its newsmagazine program 

“20/20.” Hamersley says in his brief that “[t]he entire prison interview and 

recording lasts between 35-40 minutes which was mostly unaired.” Appellant’s 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-955 | February 5, 2019 Page 3 of 13

Br. p. 6 n.3. In the report, Hamersley’s photo was shown with the three men 

who were last seen with Lauren on the night she disappeared. The report 

explained that the Spierer family received a tip from a former inmate of 

Hamersley who reported that Hamersley had told him he knew the men 

involved in Lauren’s disappearance. The report included footage from an 

interview with the former inmate recounting a conversation in which

Hamersley told him Lauren and the men were drinking and taking the drug 

ecstasy, and Lauren overdosed. The men were scared and disposed of her 

body.

[3] The footage from Hamersley’s interview that was included in the report 

consisted of Garrett asking Hamersley if he helped move Lauren’s body. 

Hamersley responded, “‘Absolutely not. I’ve never met this person before in 

my life.’” Id. at 6; Appellee ABC’s Br. p. 11. When Garrett asked if he would 

contact Garrett if he remembered or heard anything about the case, Hamersley 

responded, “‘Honestly, probably not. I do not want to be associated with this at 

all.’” Id. During a discussion between Garrett and an ABC news journalist at 

the end of the report, Garrett stated his belief that Hamersley was lying to him

and that he would continue investigating to find out why.

[4] Hamersley subsequently filed a complaint against DOC and ABC. He alleged 

that DOC negligently allowed Garrett and Benjamin to enter the correctional 

facility, meet with him, and videotape their conversation. As to ABC, 

Hamersley claimed that its report slandered and defamed him. Both DOC and 

ABC filed motions to dismiss, which the trial court granted.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-955 | February 5, 2019 Page 4 of 13

Issues

[5] Hamersley presents two issues for our review, which we restate as:

I. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing his lawsuit against 

DOC.

II. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing his lawsuit against 

ABC.

Discussion and Decision

I. Department of Correction

[6] The trial court dismissed Hamersley’s action against DOC for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. Hamersley appeals the dismissal, 

contending DOC was negligent for allowing him to be interviewed because he 

was not made aware that Garrett and Benjamin were ABC investigators. 

Rather, he believed they were with law enforcement and, had he known they 

were with the media, he would not have spoken to them. He suggests that 

DOC’s failure to obtain from him a waiver permitting the release of the 

interview resulted in his giving an involuntary interview to his detriment.

[7] An appellate court engages in a de novo review of the trial court’s grant or 

denial of a motion based on Trial Rule 12(B)(6). Brown v. Vanderburgh Cty. 

Sheriff’s Dep’t, 85 N.E.3d 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). A motion to dismiss under 

Rule 12(B)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim, not the supporting facts. Id. 

Accordingly, we must determine if the trial court erred in its application of the 

law, and we consider the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-955 | February 5, 2019 Page 5 of 13

moving party and draw every reasonable inference in favor of that party. 

Chenore v. Plantz, 56 N.E.3d 123 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). The grant of a motion to 

dismiss is proper if it is apparent that the facts alleged in the complaint are 

incapable of supporting relief under any set of circumstances. Brown, 85 N.E.3d 

866.

[8] To prevail on a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must show: (1) a duty owed by 

the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; and (3) injury to the 

plaintiff resulting from the defendant’s breach. Miller v. Rosehill Hotels, LLC, 45 

N.E.3d 15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Absent a duty, there can be no negligence or 

liability based upon a breach. Powell v. Stuber, 89 N.E.3d 430 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2017), trans. denied. Whether a duty exists is a question of law for the courts to 

decide. Podemski v. Praxair, Inc., 87 N.E.3d 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. 

denied.

[9] DOC is neither a guarantor of prisoners’ safety, nor has it been relieved of all 

responsibility for their safekeeping. Cole v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 616 N.E.2d 44 

(Ind. Ct. App. 1993), trans. denied. Rather, its responsibility toward its charges 

lies somewhere in between: DOC has the duty “to take reasonable precautions 

to preserve the life, health, and safety of prisoners.” Id. at 45-46.

[10] At the heart of Hamersley’s argument is DOC Policy and Procedure number 

00-03-101, which sets forth, in pertinent part:

The offender must sign a waiver permitting release of his/her 

image and/or words (ATTACHMENT I) or the request [for an 

interview] shall be denied. The interview may take place in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-955 | February 5, 2019 Page 6 of 13

person or by telephone, in accordance with this Administrative 

Procedure, and at the convenience of the facility. The written 

release or decision not to be interviewed shall be retained on file 

in the offender’s facility packet.

Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 44.

[11] We first observe that internal procedures and policies are expected in the prison 

context, particularly those concerning deterrence of crime, rehabilitation of 

prisoners, and institutional safety. See Kimrey v. Donahue, 861 N.E.2d 379 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. As a result, there exists a long-standing principle 

in this state that the judiciary is constrained from interfering with the internal 

procedures and policies of DOC. Id. The rationale for this hands-off approach 

has been explained as follows:

Courts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent 

problems of prison administration and reform. The operation of 

a prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking that requires 

expertise, planning, and the commitment of resources, all of 

which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and 

executive branches of government. The complex and intractable 

problems in prisons are not readily susceptible of resolution by 

judicial decree. Thus, courts will afford substantial deference to 

the professional expertise of correction officials with respect to 

the day-to-day operation of prisons and the adoption and 

execution of prison policies.

Cohn v. Strawhorn, 721 N.E.2d 342, 346 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (internal citations 

omitted), trans. denied. A DOC internal policy/procedure does not necessarily 

or even generally create a legal duty on the part of DOC. We have been 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-955 | February 5, 2019 Page 7 of 13

presented with no evidence that DOC instituted this policy with the intent of 

creating an additional duty or expanding its current duty, and we will not 

interfere with the internal workings of DOC by doing so on its behalf. 

[12] Moreover, under these circumstances we find no responsibility on the part of 

DOC under its recognized broader duty to preserve Hamersley’s life, health, 

and safety. There is no indication that his decision to speak with Garrett and 

Benjamin had any bearing on the preservation of his life, health, or safety or 

that it was coerced or involuntary in any way. Rather, Hamersley seeks to 

expand the duty of DOC to include protection of the reputations of Indiana’s 

inmates. He has not provided any support for such an expansion of DOC’s 

duty however, and we decline to create it. Absent a duty, there can be no 

negligence, Powell, 89 N.E.3d 430; therefore, the trial court’s dismissal of 

Hamersley’s negligence claim was proper.

II. American Broadcasting Company

[13] The trial court also dismissed Hamersley’s action against ABC, citing 

Hamersley’s failure to comply with Indiana Code section 34-15-3-2 (1998). 

Hamersley asserts that he did in fact comply with the statute.

[14] We begin with Indiana Code section 34-15-3-1 (1998), which states, in pertinent 

part:

(a) This chapter applies to a suit brought for:

(1) publishing;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-955 | February 5, 2019 Page 8 of 13

(2) speaking;

(3) uttering; or

(4) conveying by words, acts, or in any other manner;

a libel or slander by any radio or television station or company in 

Indiana.

Section 2 of the statute provides:

At least three (3) days before filing a complaint in a suit described 

in section 1 of this chapter, the aggrieved party shall serve notice:

(1) in writing;

(2) on the manager of the radio or television station;

(3) at the principal office of the radio or television station; 

and 

(4) that specifies the words or acts that the aggrieved party 

alleges to be false and defamatory.

Ind. Code § 34-15-3-2 (emphasis added).

[15] In his response to ABC’s motion to dismiss, Hamersley submitted a document 

he refers to as his pre-suit notice pursuant to Indiana Code §34-15-3-2. While 

the document contains both date and signature lines, it is undated and 

unsigned. In addition, although it states he has a claim against “ABC news 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-955 | February 5, 2019 Page 9 of 13

network,” it does not show that it was sent to the manager of ABC at its 

principal office. Appellee ABC’s App. Vol. II, p. 71. Further, it states that 

Garrett and Benjamin interviewed him and made “false accusations that [he] 

helped move the missing women’s [sic] body and insinuated far worse.” Id. at 

71-72. Hamersley states that after he denied any involvement in Lauren’s 

disappearance, Garrett stated his opinion that Hamersley is lying and said he 

would “continue to investigate [Hamersley] to find out why he lied.” Id. at 72. 

Hamersley also alleged that “[t]hroughout the episode, [his] photo is shown 

alongside the photos of the last three men seen with the missing women [sic].” 

Id. 

[16] In its order dismissing Hamersley’s action against ABC, the trial court found 

his notice deficient because the document was “unsigned, undated, with no 

cover letter or any other indication that Hamersley made a written notice upon 

ABC at its principal office that it retract specific words or acts that he felt to be 

false and defamatory.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 32. In his motion to correct 

error, Hamersley asserts he signed, dated and mailed a copy of his notice to 

ABC and then subsequently printed an additional copy from his computer for 

use as an exhibit. In the end, all we have are Hamersley’s self-serving claims; 

there is no proof of compliance with the statute.1 

 

1 Hamersley also included in his appendix a copy of a certified mail return receipt that is undated and lacks 

any information linking it to any particular document. ABC asserts this document was not presented to the 

trial court. Our review of the record does not reveal that it was presented to the trial court, and it may not be 

submitted for the first time on appeal. See Morey v. Morey, 49 N.E.3d 1065, 1073 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-955 | February 5, 2019 Page 10 of 13

[17] Although the only basis stated in the trial court’s order of dismissal is 

Hamersley’s failure to comply with Indiana Code section 34-15-3-2, we can 

affirm a trial court’s dismissal on any theory or basis evident in the record. See

Blackman v. Gholson, 46 N.E.3d 975 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Therefore, we discuss

additional grounds supporting the trial court’s dismissal of Hamersley’s action 

against ABC.

[18] The trial court also could have properly dismissed Hamersley’s complaint under 

the authority of Indiana Code section 34-58-1-2 (2004). That statute provides, 

in pertinent 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:

(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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-955 | February 5, 2019 Page 11 of 13

(B) fact.

Id. This statute is one of several enacted by the General Assembly in 2004 in 

response to prolific offender litigation. Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 853 

N.E.2d 478 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. These statutes were “designed to 

balance an offender’s right to file a civil action with the heavy burden that those 

suits have placed on our judicial system.” Id. at 481.

[19] The standard of review for dismissals under Indiana Code section 34-58-1-2 is 

de novo. Smith v. Huckins, 850 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). We look only 

to the well-pleaded facts contained in the complaint and determine whether it 

contains allegations concerning all of the material elements necessary to sustain 

a recovery under some viable legal theory. Id.

[20] In his complaint, Hamersley has alleged a claim of defamation against ABC, a 

television station. However, the complaint does not refer in any way to Indiana 

Code section 34-15-3-2, or acknowledge its requirements, or state Hamersley’s 

compliance therewith. Thus, a second basis for the trial court’s dismissal is 

Indiana Code 34-58-1-2 (a)(2)—that is, Hamersley’s defamation claim is not a 

claim upon which relief may be granted due to his failure to comply with the 

mandatory dictates of Indiana Code section 34-15-3-2.

[21] Moreover, to establish defamation, a plaintiff must prove: (1) a communication 

with defamatory imputation; (2) malice; (3) publication; and (4) damages. 

Miller v. Cent. Ind. Cmty. Found., Inc., 11 N.E.3d 944 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. 

denied. A private individual who brings a defamation action involving an event 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-955 | February 5, 2019 Page 12 of 13

of public interest or concern must prove actual malice. Kitco, Inc. v. Corp. for 

Gen. Trade, 706 N.E.2d 581 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). Whether a matter is of public 

concern or interest is a question of law for the court. Brewington v. State, 7 

N.E.3d 946 (Ind. 2014). 

[22] In this instance, the disappearance of Lauren certainly constitutes a matter of 

widespread public interest and concern. Her disappearance and the ensuing 

investigation have received extensive media coverage spanning several years

and are legitimate concerns for this state generally and for the city of 

Bloomington and Indiana University in particular. Accordingly, Hamersley 

must establish that ABC acted with actual malice.

[23] Actual malice requires a defamatory falsehood to be published with knowledge

of or reckless disregard of its falsity. Kitco, 706 N.E.2d 581. Publication is

made with reckless disregard of the truth when the publisher has a high degree 

of awareness of its probable falsity. Id. Thus, the test is not whether a 

reasonably prudent person would have published the statement but rather 

whether there is sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant 

in fact entertained serious doubts about the truth of the publication. Id.

[24] In this case, the complaint makes no allegation of actual malice on the part of 

ABC. Even on appeal, the parties characterize the aired report as a 

presentation of the evidence and information gathered thus far and the opinions 

and theories of investigators as to possible scenarios concerning the unsolved 

disappearance of a college co-ed. In addition, ABC’s inclusion in the report of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-955 | February 5, 2019 Page 13 of 13

Hamersley’s denial of involvement tends toward demonstrating a lack of actual 

malice. This hardly qualifies as evidence that ABC knew or had a high degree 

of awareness of the report’s falsity. Thus, a review of Hamersley’s complaint 

through the lens of Section 34-58-1-2 reveals a lack of allegations concerning 

material elements necessary to sustain a recovery in an action for defamation. 

See Smith, 850 N.E.2d 480. Accordingly, a dismissal under the authority of 

Indiana Code 34-58-1-2(a)(2) would also have been appropriate.

Conclusion

[25] Considering the complaint in the light most favorable to Hamersley, we cannot 

say the trial court erred in its application of the law. Accordingly, we affirm the 

trial court’s dismissal of his complaint against both DOC and ABC.

[26] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.