Opinion
Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-MI-2212
02-04-2022
Kevin MARTIN, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Commissioner CARTER, et al., Appellees-Defendants.
Appellant Pro Se: Kevin Martin, Carlisle, Indiana Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General for Indiana, Monika Prekopa Talbot, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
Appellant Pro Se: Kevin Martin, Carlisle, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General for Indiana, Monika Prekopa Talbot, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Bailey, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Kevin Martin ("Martin")—currently incarcerated in the Indiana Department of Correction ("DOC")—appeals, pro se, following the dismissal of his civil lawsuit and the denial of his motion to correct error. We conclude that Martin has waived appellate review due to substantial noncompliance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure that ultimately impeded our ability to review this case. That is, among other deficiencies, (1) the Brief of Appellant lacks an adequate Statement of Facts, (2) Martin failed to file a compliant Appendix, and (3) he does not cogently argue for reversal. Because Martin waived review, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Martin sued several defendants, all of whom appear to be affiliated with the DOC (collectively, the "Defendants"). The Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting that—among other things— Indiana Code Section 34-58-1-2 (the "Screening Statute") required dismissal because Martin raised only frivolous or non-viable claims. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the action.
[3] Martin filed a motion to correct error. Therein, Martin largely claimed that the dismissal of his lawsuit violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the trial court judge was motivated by racial bias. The trial court denied the motion to correct error. Martin now appeals, pro se.
Discussion and Decision
[4] We first note that "a pro se litigant is held to the same standards as a trained attorney and is afforded no inherent leniency simply by virtue of being self-represented." Zavodnik v. Harper , 17 N.E.3d 259, 266 (Ind. 2014). As to the standards expected of an appellant, we generally look to the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure. Among those rules is Rule 46(A), which specifies that the Brief of Appellant must contain conforming sections, including a Statement of Facts and Argument. Moreover, Rule 50 specifies that the Appendix in a civil case must contain all "documents from the Clerk's Record ... necessary for resolution of the issues raised on appeal[.]" Ultimately, if the appellant violates the Appellate Rules, he risks waiving our review, with waiver turning on whether a deficiency is "sufficiently substantial" such that it "impede[s] our consideration of the issue raised." McFarland v. State , 381 N.E.2d 1061, 1063 (Ind. 1978) ; see Combs v. State , 168 N.E.3d 985, 990 n.3 (Ind. 2021), cert. pending.
[5] Here, Martin is appealing the dismissal of his lawsuit and the subsequent denial of his motion to correct error. In dismissing the lawsuit, the trial court referred to the Screening Statute, which requires a court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by an incarcerated person when the person has raised only frivolous or non-viable claims. See Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2(a). Generally, we review de novo the propriety of dismissal under the Screening Statute, see Smith v. Huckins , 850 N.E.2d 480, 484 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), and we review for an abuse of discretion a ruling on a motion to correct error, see Renner v. Shepard-Bazant , 172 N.E.3d 1208, 1212 (Ind. 2021). Here, however, we do not reach the merits because substantial noncompliance with the Appellate Rules has precluded our review.
[6] Under Appellate Rule 46(A)(6), the Statement of Facts "shall describe the facts relevant to the issues presented for review but need not repeat what is in the statement of the case." Moreover, the Statement of Case "shall briefly describe the nature of the case, the course of the proceedings relevant to the issues presented for review, and the disposition of these issues by the trial court" with "[p]age references to the Record on Appeal or Appendix ... required[.]" App. R. 46(A)(5). Furthermore, the Statement of Issues "shall concisely and particularly describe each issue presented for review." App. R. 46(A)(4).
[7] Martin provides a sparse and confusing Statement of Facts, transcribed as best we can: "Martin notes under Rule 40(A) state In relevant part he don't have to obtain permission to appeal but looking at the conflict rule on both cause (1) 77C01-2104-MI 202 and (2) 77C01-2107 of 390) speaking for itself here[.]" Br. of Appellant at 5 (quoted as in original). As to the Statement of Case, he states: "Martin seeking to filed charge against all this defendants in this case and was deny Equal-protection by race judge in Indiana against Kevin Martin." Id. at 4 (quoted as in original). Neither section adequately connects to the Statement of Issues: "Whether the trial court abused its discretion in deprive plaintiff of equal protection of law because he have the same right as a person in world are a fundamental right to filed charges and use the court system." Id. (quoted as in original).
[8] Martin has also failed to provide a compliant Appendix, neglecting to include documents that are "necessary for resolution of the issues raised on appeal[.]" App. R. 50. Indeed, he fails to include the complaint, the motion to dismiss, the order granting the motion to dismiss, and the subsequent motion to correct error. Instead, the Defendants have provided these critical documents in their Appendix. Martin ultimately includes only a handful of documents: (1) the Notice of Completion of Clerk's Record; (2) the Chronological Case Summary; (3) the order denying Martin's motion to correct error; and (4) documents related to criminal charges filed against Martin in November 2018 alleging that Martin committed Battery by Bodily Waste while incarcerated in the DOC.
[9] Even if we could look past the foregoing deficiencies, Martin has also violated Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a), which directs that the Argument section "must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning" and with "citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on[.]" Martin largely seems to contend that because there were charges filed against him for his conduct while incarcerated, he should be able to pursue litigation about the alleged conduct of others. All in all, Martin fails to present cogent argument that his lawsuit was not subject to mandatory dismissal under the Screening Statute.
[10] Because of the pervasive and substantial violations of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure, which have impeded our review of this case, we conclude that Martin has waived appellate review. We therefore affirm the trial court.
At times, Martin suggests that the trial court dismissed the suit due to racial bias. Indeed, at one point, Martin asserts that he has "knowledge of [the] relevant fact" that he "was treated different by a race judge who dislike black people[.]" Br. of Appellant at 10. Although Martin waived review, we note that Martin provides no record support for his allegations of bias other than the adverse rulings, and "an adverse ruling alone is not sufficient to show bias or prejudice." Flowers v. State , 738 N.E.2d 1051, 1060 n.4 (Ind. 2000).
[11] Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Altice, J., concur.