Court Opinion

ID: 9953630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 16:05:12.926444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:09.321054
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM DECISION
       Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not
       binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value
            or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.

                                                                                    FILED
                                                                                Mar 22 2024, 8:47 am

                                                                                    CLERK
                                                                                Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                                   Court of Appeals
                                                                                     and Tax Court

                                           IN THE

           Court of Appeals of Indiana
                                         Kevin Martin,
                                        Appellant-Plaintiff

                                                  v.

                                 Marley Hancock, et al.,
                                       Appellees-Defendants

                                          March 22, 2024
                                   Court of Appeals Case No.
                                          23A-PL-554
                           Appeal from the LaPorte Superior Court
                       The Honorable Michael A. Fish, Special Judge
                                      Trial Court Cause No.
                                      46D02-2008-PL-1407

                          Memorandum Decision by Judge May
                            Judges Bailey and Felix concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-PL-554 | March 22, 2024               Page 1 of 6
      May, Judge.

[1]   Kevin Martin appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint against Deputy

      Attorney General Marley G. Hancock and St. Joseph County Clerk Terri

      Rethlake. We affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   On August 12, 2020, Martin filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section

      1983 against Hancock and Rethlake. Therein, as best as we can ascertain,

      Martin alleged he was deprived of certain rights as part of a July 2020

      deposition Hancock conducted because correctional officers were present

      during that deposition. Additionally, Martin asserted he was treated differently

      in some way than two other prisoners were treated during depositions. He

      claimed this treatment was retaliation for a complaint Martin filed against

      Hancock with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. Martin

      further argued Hancock and Rethlake were engaged in a conspiracy against

      him, though the nature of that conspiracy was not clear. Martin asked the trial

      court to award him $500,000.00 in damages and an injunction to have Hancock

      removed from all of Martin’s cases. Martin filed an incomplete summons for

      Hancock, so the State never received the summons.

[3]   In April 2021, Martin filed a motion for default judgment against Hancock.

      The trial court scheduled a hearing on Martin’s request for November 23, 2021.

      The hearing ultimately was not held, but the parties and court discussed the

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-PL-554 | March 22, 2024   Page 2 of 6
      case. That discussion seems to have been off the record, though Martin

      indicated in a subsequent filing that the State asked the trial court to dismiss the

      case because it had not received a summons but to allow Martin the ability to

      refile his complaint and complete service on the State. 1 In December 2021,

      Martin filed another incomplete summons, although it seems that summons

      was delivered to the State at some point.

[4]   On December 20, 2022, the State appeared on Hancock’s behalf. On January

      23, 2023, Martin filed another motion for default judgment in the case. On

      February 3, 2023, the State filed a motion asking the trial court to screen

      Martin’s complaint pursuant to Indiana’s Frivolous Claim Law, which requires

      the trial court to consider whether Martin’s claim was frivolous, a claim upon

      which no relief can be granted, or a claim that “seeks monetary relief from a

      defendant that is immune from liability for such relief.” Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2.

      The State alleged Martin was “an abusive filer in Indiana courts” and a search

      of online court records revealed he had “a long history of making baseless

      accusations toward the judges[.]” (App. Vol. II at 29.) Additionally, the State

      asked the trial court to dismiss Martin’s complaint under Trial Rules 12(B)(2),

      (4), (5), and (6). On February 7, 2023, the trial court dismissed Martin’s claims

      with prejudice after “having considered [the States’s] motion and all applicable

      filings[.]” (Id. at 15.)

      1
          The State did not argue this characterization of the discussion with the trial court is incorrect.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-PL-554 | March 22, 2024                            Page 3 of 6
      Discussion and Decision
[5]   As an initial matter, we note Martin proceeds pro se. As we noted in one of our

      earlier opinions involving Martin, “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.” Martin v. Brown, 129 N.E.3d 283, 284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)

      (internal italics omitted). Pro se litigants who do not follow established rules of

      procedure “must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do

      so.” Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (internal

      citations omitted), reh’g denied.

[6]   Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) requires an appellant’s brief to contain

      “contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent

      reasoning.” Here, we are unable to ascertain Martin’s argument regarding the

      trial court’s dismissal of his complaint under Indiana Code section 34-58-1-2.

      He seems to complain of a lack of light in his cell at the Westville Correctional

      Facility, which he claims caused significant vision problems rendering him

      unable to properly review legal materials or write. Additionally, he alleges the

      trial court judge, Judge Michael Fish, committed some sort of misconduct.

      Finally, he contends a guard at the Westville Correctional Facility

      discriminated against him based on his race. While he claims he is appealing

      the trial court’s order dismissing his complaint, he makes little argument

      regarding that specific issue. His brief is handwritten and barely legible in some

      areas. We cannot understand why he is challenging the trial court’s dismissal

      of his claim or what case law might support any claim he may have.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-PL-554 | March 22, 2024   Page 4 of 6
[7]   While we prefer to decide cases on their merits, alleged errors are waived when

      an appellant’s noncompliance with the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure is

      so substantial it impedes our appellate consideration of the errors. Perry v.

      Anonymous Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans.

      denied. Here, we are unable to determine whether any of Martin’s arguments

      have merit because they are so unintelligible. Moreover, none of his assertions

      on appeal seem to address the viability of the complaint dismissed by the trial

      court. Therefore, his egregious violation of Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a)

      substantially impedes our review of any issues he attempts to raise and thus

      waives the issues he purports to present from our review. See, e.g., Martin v.

      Hunt, 130 N.E.3d 135, 138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (issue waived for violations of

      Indiana Appellate Rules to the extent that we were unable to ascertain Martin’s

      argument).

      Conclusion
[8]   As Martin has not presented a cogent argument, any issues he attempted to

      present on appeal are waived. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal

      of his claims.

[9]   Affirmed.

      Bailey, J., and Felix, J., concur.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-PL-554 | March 22, 2024   Page 5 of 6
APPELLANT PRO SE
Kevin Martin
Pendleton Correctional Facility
Pendleton, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Indiana Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
David E. Corey
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-PL-554 | March 22, 2024   Page 6 of 6