Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-1240 | June 28, 2019 Page 1 of 9

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

Michael S. Hauser

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Adam G. Forrest

BBKCC ATTORNEYS

Richmond, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael S. Hauser,

Appellant,

v.

The GEO Group Inc., Lt. 

Storms, Sgt. Cross, Sgt. A. 

Brown, and Sgt. H.N. Driscoll,

Appellees.

June 28, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-SC-1240

Appeal from the Henry Circuit 

Court

The Honorable David L. McCord, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

33C03-1801-SC-35

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-1240 | June 28, 2019 Page 2 of 9

Statement of the Case

[1] Michael Hauser (“Hauser”), an inmate in the Department of Correction

(“DOC”), filed a pro se small claims complaint in Henry Circuit Court against 

The GEO Group, Inc., Lt. Storms, Sgt. Cross, Sgt. A. Brown, and Sgt. H.N. 

Driscol (“Correctional Staff”) seeking the monetary value of lost property. 

[2] Hauser’s appeal raises several issues, which we restate as (1) whether the trial 

court abused its discretion by denying Hauser’s motion for telephonic hearing;

and (2) whether Hauser demonstrated that he is entitled to the recovery sought. 

Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that Hauser 

failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to the recovery sought, we affirm the 

trial court.

[3] We affirm.

Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying 

Hauser’s motion for telephonic hearing.

2. Whether Hauser demonstrated that he is entitled to the recovery 

sought.

Facts

[4] On February 5, 2017, Hauser received a conduct report due to a behavioral 

issue and was placed in the restrictive housing unit (“RHU”) at the New Castle 

Correctional Facility (“NCCF”). Before Hauser was placed in the RHU, his 

property was inventoried on an “Offender Personal Property” form. (App. Vol. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-1240 | June 28, 2019 Page 3 of 9

2 at 32-34). On February 7, Hauser was released from restrictive housing. 

Upon release, he signed a “Property Release-Inmate” form through which he 

acknowledged that all of his state-issued and personal property had been 

returned to him. (App. Vol. 2 at 74). 

[5] On February 13, 2017, Hauser filed an “Offender Complaint” with the RHU 

staff alleging the loss of property. (App. Vol. 2 at 44). Hauser claimed that he 

was missing: various art supplies, batteries, substance abuse manuals, a 

blanket, a radio, and clothing items. In response, Lt. Storms stated that some of 

Hauser’s personal property had been “confiscated [as] altered or excessive[.]” 

(App. Vol. 2 at 67). Lt. Storms also addressed the fact that many of the items 

claimed missing were not on either inventory form. 

[6] Approximately two weeks later, on February 22, Hauser filed a “Notice of Loss 

of Property – Tort Claim” with the Legal Services Division of the DOC seeking 

reimbursement of $62.42 for his lost property. (App. Vol. 2 at 45). Mike Smith

(“Smith”), the Tort Claims Administrator at the NCCF, investigated Hauser’s 

claim and denied the same as unsubstantiated. In support of the denial, Smith 

cited several reasons including the fact that some items: were confiscated, were 

not listed on either inventory sheet, were accounted for, and lacked proof of 

purchase receipts. 

[7] On January 22, 2018, Hauser filed a pro se notice of claim against the 

Correctional Staff regarding his lost property seeking damages in the amount of 

$6,000. That same day, the court “order[ed] all parties to submit their evidence 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-1240 | June 28, 2019 Page 4 of 9

by affidavit.”1 (App. Vol. 2 at 22) (emphasis in original). The trial court 

ordered Hauser to file his evidence by the trial date of March 2 and the 

Correctional Staff to file their evidence within twenty (20) days thereafter. The 

court order further stated that within thirty (30) days after the trial date, Hauser 

could “file any rebuttal evidence by affidavit or exhibit.” (App. Vol. 2 at 22). If 

Hauser filed any rebuttal evidence, within forty (40) days after the trial date,

Correctional Staff could “file any surrebuttal evidence by affidavit or exhibit.” 

(App. Vol. 2 at 23). 

[8] On February 15, 2018, Hauser filed his affidavit with several exhibits attached. 

He again valued his missing property at $62.42. Thereafter, on March 3, 2018,

Hauser filed a “Motion for Telephonic Appearance at Hearing[,]” which was 

denied a few days later. (App. Vol. 2 at 47). On March 20, 2018, Correctional

Staff filed their response, which included an affidavit by Smith and additional 

exhibits. Hauser then filed a “Response to Mike Smith Affidavit.” (App. Vol. 

2 at 78). Following Hauser’s response, Correctional Staff filed a second 

affidavit by Smith. 

[9] The trial court entered an order on April 24 denying Hauser’s claim for failing 

“to meet his burden of proof[.]” (App. Vol. 2 at 6). Three days later, Hauser 

filed a “Response to Second Affidavit of Mike Smith.” (App. Vol. 2 at 86). 

 

1

In support of allowing the trial to proceed by documentary evidence, the court cited Hill v. Duckworth, 679 

N.E.2d 938, 940 n. 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (noting that one of the available avenues for a prisoner, who is 

denied permission to attend trial, to prosecute his action is to submit “the case to the court by documentary 

evidence[]”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-1240 | June 28, 2019 Page 5 of 9

Thereafter, on April 30, the trial court issued its April 24 order denying 

Hauser’s claim. Hauser now appeals. 

Decision

[10] Hauser argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his 

motion for telephonic hearing and erred when it concluded that he failed to

demonstrate that he is entitled to the recovery sought. We address each of his 

contentions in turn.

1. Motion for Telephonic Hearing

[11] Hauser argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his “Motion 

for Telephonic Appearance at Hearing.” (App. Vol. 2 at 47). In support of his 

position, Hauser contends that he “has a right to have access to the courts in a 

free, and open manner.” (Hauser’s Br. 12). Hauser is correct that he has a right 

to bring a civil action. However, a prisoner, such as Hauser, does not have an 

absolute right to be present at the proceeding. Niksich v. Cotton, 810 N.E.2d 

1003, 1008 (Ind. 2004). We have previously held that a trial court cannot 

secure the attendance of an incarcerated plaintiff at a civil action unrelated to 

the case resulting in incarceration. Hill, 679 N.E.2d at 939 (citing Rogers v. 

Youngblood, 78 N.E.2d 663, 665 (Ind. 1948)). Additionally, trial courts are 

endowed with large administrative discretion in the conduct of their business, 

and in the absence of an abuse of discretion, appellate courts will not interfere 

in such matters. Rogers, 78 N.E.2d at 665. Indeed, there are different avenues 

available to the trial court by which it can proceed with the civil claim of an 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-1240 | June 28, 2019 Page 6 of 9

incarcerated individual including: submission by documentary evidence; trial 

by telephonic conference; representation by counsel; and postponement until 

release from incarceration. Hill, 679 N.E.2d at 940 n. 1. 

[12] Here, Hauser was afforded the opportunity to submit his claim by affidavit. 

The trial court declined to order transport of Hauser for the civil proceeding and

“order[ed] all parties to submit their evidence by affidavit.” (App. Vol. 2 at 22) 

(emphasis in original). Hauser complied and submitted his documentary 

evidence. He later filed the motion for telephonic hearing, which was denied by 

the trial court. Because the trial court has considerable discretion in selecting 

how to proceed after evaluating a prisoner’s need to be present against concerns 

of expense, security, logistics and docket control, we conclude that the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Hauser’s motion and ordered 

all parties to submit their evidence by affidavit. See Niksich, 810 N.E.2d at 1008. 

2. Sufficiency of Evidence 

[13] Hauser argues that there was sufficient evidence to support his small claims 

action. His argument is two-pronged. First, he argues that the trial court erred 

when it did not consider his response to the “Second Affidavit of Mike Smith.” 

(App. Vol. 2 at 83). Second, he argues that the trial court erred by finding that 

he failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to the recovery sought.

[14] Judgments in small claims actions are “subject to review as prescribed by 

relevant Indiana rules and statutes.” Ind. Small Claims Rule 11(A). Under 

Indiana Trial Rule 52(A), the clearly erroneous standard applies to appellate 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-1240 | June 28, 2019 Page 7 of 9

review of facts determined in a bench trial with due regard given to the 

opportunity of the small claims court to assess witness credibility. Trinity 

Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1067 (Ind. 2006). This “deferential 

standard of review is particularly important in small claims actions, where trials 

are ‘informal, with the sole objective of dispensing speedy justice between the 

parties according to the rules of substantive law.’” Id. at 1067-68 (quoting City 

of Dunkirk Water & Sewage Dep’t v. Hall, 657 N.E.2d 115, 116 (Ind. 1995)). 

Although the method of proof may be informal, the parties in a small claims 

court bear the same burdens of proof as they would in a regular civil action on 

the same issues. LTL Truck Serv. LLC v. Safeguard, Inc., 817 N.E.2d 664, 668 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2004). The party who bears the burden of proof must 

demonstrate that he is entitled to the recovery sought. Id. Where a small 

claims case turns solely on documentary evidence, we review the judgment de 

novo, just as we review summary judgment rulings and other “paper records.” 

Trinity Homes, 848 N.E.2d at 1068. 

[15] Hauser first argues that the trial court erred when it did not consider his 

response to the “Second Affidavit of Mike Smith[.]” (App. Vol. 2 at 83). In its 

order to submit evidence by affidavit, the trial court stated that within thirty 

(30) days after the trial date, Hauser could “file any rebuttal evidence by 

affidavit or exhibit.” (App. Vol. 2 at 22). If Hauser did file any rebuttal 

evidence, within forty (40) days after the trial date, Correctional Staff could “file 

any surrebuttal evidence by affidavit or exhibit.” (App. Vol. 2 at 23). Both 

Hauser and Correctional Staff took such action. However, nowhere in the trial 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-1240 | June 28, 2019 Page 8 of 9

court’s order does it provide Hauser with the opportunity to file a response to 

Correctional Staff’s “surrebuttal evidence.” (App. Vol. 2 at 23). A trial court is 

not obligated to allow parties repeated attempts to respond to an opposing 

witness’ affidavits. See Barnett v. State, 916 N.E.2d 280, 286 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2009) (holding that a small claims court has broad discretion in determining 

whether to admit or exclude evidence), trans. denied. Here, the trial court gave 

Hauser an opportunity to respond to a witness’ affidavit. This was consistent 

with the interests of justice under the small claims rules. 

[16] Hauser next contends that he did demonstrate that he is entitled to the recovery 

sought. However, our review of the record reveals otherwise. Under INDIANA

CODE § 33-29-2-4, “[t]he small claims docket has jurisdiction over the 

following: (1) Civil actions in which the amount sought or value of the 

property sought to be recovered is not more than six thousand ($6,000).” 

Moreover, under Indiana Small Claims Rule 2(B)(4), the notice of tort claim 

must include “the nature and amount of the claim[.]” Thus, in order to prevail, 

Hauser had to prove what he was missing and the amount of the damages. 

[17] In his submission of evidence, Hauser attached several lists of property he 

claimed was missing, inventory lists, and receipts. These exhibits are

inconsistent with each other. Hauser claims several items as missing that were 

not listed on either his personal property inventory form upon leaving his unit 

or the inventory form completed upon his entrance into the RHU. Further, 

upon leaving the RHU, Hauser signed a form acknowledging the return and 

receipt of all of his property. Moreover, it is noteworthy that in his submission 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-1240 | June 28, 2019 Page 9 of 9

of evidence, Hauser claimed his lost property was worth $62.42. However, he

is requesting damages totaling $6,000. Hauser provided no explanation or 

evidence reflecting his alleged lost property being valued at $6,000. It is clear 

that the trial court did not err by finding that Hauser failed to demonstrate that 

he is entitled to the recovery sought.

[18] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion and that Hauser failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to the 

recovery sought. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court. 

[19] Affirmed. 

Riley, J., and Bailey, J., concur.