Opinion
23A-MI-1849
06-10-2024
Warren Parks, Appellant-Plaintiff v. James D. Humphrey and Travelers Insurance, Appellees-Petitioners
APPELLANT PRO SE Warren Parks Greencastle, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE JAMES D. HUMPHREY Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General David E. Corey Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Putnam Circuit Court The Honorable Matthew L. Headley, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 67C01-2306-MI-136
APPELLANT PRO SE
Warren Parks Greencastle, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE JAMES D. HUMPHREY
Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General
David E. Corey Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
KENWORTHY, JUDGE
Case Summary
[¶1] Warren Parks appeals the trial court's order dismissing his claim for damages against James D. Humphrey and Travelers Insurance. Because Parks failed to present a cogent argument on appeal explaining how the trial court erred in dismissing his claim, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] Parks has not provided an adequate Statement of the Facts, offering only a list of documents filed and their filing dates. With help from the State's brief, we have gleaned the following from the record: Parks is incarcerated at the Putnamville Correctional Facility. In 2021, Parks sent a "Coloring Agreement" (the "Agreement") to Humphrey, a judge in Dearborn County, trying to establish a contract between himself and Judge Humphrey. In early 2023, Parks attempted to make a claim based on the Agreement with Travelers under an insurance policy Travelers had issued to Dearborn County Government. Travelers denied the claim.
[¶3] On June 27, 2023, Parks filed a "Statement of Claim and Amount" against Judge Humphrey and Travelers seeking judgment for $700,000 for "wages" and "damages." Appellee's App. Vol. 2 at 8. On the same date, he filed a document titled "Affidavit of True, and Facts, Respectfully Request to Enforce Contract." Id. at 5. Parks alleged "[r]easons for the enforcement of the [Agreement], is because, [Judge Humphrey] has been unfaithfully while he was a Judge" and "has broken the Agreement as per UCC1-201(36) he has violated due process[.]" Id. at 6. Parks sought enforcement of the Agreement and an order for Travelers to pay his claim. The trial court dismissed Parks' claim on June 28.
The trial court is required to review a complaint filed by an offender before taking any other action. Ind. Code § 34-58-1-1 (2004) (the "Frivolous Claim Law"). A claim may not proceed if it is not a claim upon which relief may be granted. I.C. § 34-58-1-2(a)(2). The Frivolous Claim Law was designed to screen and prevent abusive and prolific offender litigation in our state. Smith v. Ind. Dep't of Corr., 883 N.E.2d 802, 804 (Ind. 2008).
[¶4] On July 7, Parks re-filed the June 27 documents with the court and filed an additional document titled, "Affidavit of Truth, Facts, Objection and Order for a Hearing" objecting to the dismissal. Appellee's App. Vol. 2 at 21. On July 10, the trial court issued a notice to the parties stating, "Court finds this case has previously been dismissed. Court takes no action on any further filings." Id. at 32. Parks then filed a Notice of Appeal.
Parks' Appellate Issue is Waived
[¶5] We begin by noting Parks proceeds pro se. It is well established pro se litigants are held to the same standard as licensed attorneys. Wenner v. Hensley, 224 N.E.3d 339, 342 (Ind.Ct.App. 2023). Pro se litigants who do not follow the established rules of procedure "must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so." Evans v. State, 209 N.E.3d 472, 480 (Ind.Ct.App. 2023). One of those consequences is waiver of issues on appeal for failing to present a cogent argument. See Martin v. Brown, 129 N.E.3d 283, 285 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019). We prefer to decide cases on their merits when possible, but "we will deem alleged errors waived where an appellant's noncompliance with the rules of appellate procedure is so substantial it impedes" our review. Wenner, 224 N.E.3d at 344 (quotation omitted).
[¶6] "The purpose of our appellate rules . . . is to aid and expedite review and to relieve the appellate court of the burden of searching the record and briefing the case." Miller v. Patel, 212 N.E.3d 639, 657 (Ind. 2023) (quotation omitted). We will not become an advocate for a party or address arguments too poorly developed or inadequately expressed to be understood. Wenner, 224 N.E.3d at 344. Parks' brief and appendix are riddled with violations of our rules, but the most egregious violation is the argument section of his brief. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) requires this section to "contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on[.]"
[¶7] On appeal, Parks does not present a clear, cognizable argument about why the trial court's dismissal of his claim was erroneous. It appears he may be arguing the trial court erred in not holding a hearing before dismissing his claim. That said, Parks does not point to any authority for the proposition that a hearing is required before dismissal under Indiana's Frivolous Claim Law. The only authority he cites-without attempting to show how it applies here-are federal criminal cases about due process and the Indiana statute concerning exemptions from COVID-19 immunization requirements. As we may not become an advocate for Parks, we conclude he has waived his argument on appeal. And to the extent Parks intends to make any other claim, he has not done so in an intelligible manner. Therefore, we hold Parks has waived his issues on appeal and we affirm the trial court's order dismissing Parks' claim.
Conclusion
[¶8] Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) requires Parks to support his appeal with cogent argument. He did not do so. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
[¶9] Affirmed.
May, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.