A. Taylor v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, State of Indiana, Gerald B. Coleman as Commissioner of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 2, 2015
• Docket: 45A03-1506-PL-816
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 02 2015, 7:46 am 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 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE A. Taylor Gregory F. Zoeller Hammond, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Kyle Hunter Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

A. Taylor, December 2, 2015 Appellant, Court of Appeals Case No. 45A03-1506-PL-816 v. Appeal from the Lake Superior Court Indiana Bureau of Motor The Honorable Elizabeth F. Vehicles, State of Indiana, Tavitas, Special Judge Gerald B. Coleman as Trial Court Cause Nos. Commissioner of the Bureau of 45D11-0506-PL-74, Motor Vehicles 45D03-1407-PL-3 Appellee.

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1506-PL-816 |December 2, 2015 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] In 2002, Appellant A. Taylor brought suit against Appellees the Indiana Bureau

of Motor Vehicles (“the BMV”), the State of Indiana (“the State”), and

Commissioner of the BMV, Gerald Coleman. The case involved the renewal of

Taylor’s driver’s license. On April 8, 2014, the trial court issued a final order

resolving all pending issues. Taylor filed a motion to correct error. The

presiding trial court judge subsequently recused herself from the case and a new

special judge was appointed. Approximately a year later, the special judge held

a hearing to determine the status of the case and found that the April 8, 2014

order resolved all issues before the court and that the motion to correct error

was denied pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 53.3. In his pro se appeal, Taylor

raises several issues regarding the manner in which the special judge was

appointed and argues that the special judge did not have the authority to

preside over the case. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] Between 2002 and 2006, Taylor was involved in litigation with Appellees

apparently involving the renewal of Taylor’s driver’s license.1 On February 9,

2005, judgment was entered in favor of Taylor. On March 16, 2005, Taylor

filed a motion for contempt against the BMV for failure to comply with the

1 The record provided is unclear as to the nature of the substantive issue or issues underlying this case.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1506-PL-816 |December 2, 2015 Page 2 of 6 judgment. The trial court ordered the BMV to comply with the judgment but

did not impose sanctions. On April 21, 2005, Taylor filed a notice with the

Indiana Supreme Court requesting disqualification of the trial court judge,

Judge Diane Schneider, which the Supreme Court denied. On May 31, 2005,

Judge Schneider recused herself and ordered that in the event the parties could

not agree on a special judge, Judge Jeffrey Dywan would be appointed. The

case was transferred to Judge Dywan on June 20, 2005.

[3] On July 28, 2005, Taylor filed a second motion for contempt and sanctions.

After a hearing on the motion, the trial court denied Taylor’s request for

contempt and sanctions. Taylor unsuccessfully appealed the trial court’s denial

of his motion.

[4] On June 18, 2013, Taylor again filed a motion for contempt and sanctions.2 In

the time since Taylor’s previous filings, Judge Dywan had retired and Judge

Schneider had assumed Judge Dywan’s docket. Because Judge Schneider had

previously presided over and recused herself from the case, she did not accept

jurisdiction over the case and instead appointed Special Judge Sheila Moss. On

December 13, 2013, Taylor filed a complaint against Judge Moss with the

Indiana Supreme Court and subsequently filed a motion requesting the

2 It appears from the docket sheet that Taylor may have had a new issue with the renewal of his driver’s license. However, as stated above, the specific substantive issues raised by Taylor are unclear in the record.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1506-PL-816 |December 2, 2015 Page 3 of 6 appointment of a new special judge. The Supreme Court declined to withdraw

Judge Moss from the case.

[5] On April 8, 2014, the trial court denied Taylor’s pending June 18, 2013, motion

for contempt and sanctions and gave Taylor ten days to submit a letter to the

BMV requesting an administrative hearing. On May 12, 2014, Taylor filed a

motion to correct error. On July 7, 2014, Judge Moss recused herself from the

case in an order explaining that “[g]iven the recent filings by [Taylor], it has

become apparent that [Taylor] no longer has confidence in the competence and

ability of the current Special Judge herein; and The Court finds there are no

motions currently pending in this matter.” Appellant’s App. p. 3. On July 7,

2014, Taylor filed a motion to vacate and rescind Judge Moss’s order of recusal.

Because the parties failed to agree to a new special judge, the trial court

appointed Judge Elizabeth Tavitas as special judge.

[6] On February 23, 2015, Taylor filed with the Indiana Supreme Court a praecipe

for withdrawal of Special Judge Tavitas, which was denied. On April 28, 2015,

the trial court held a status hearing and issued an order in which it found as

follows:

3. Based upon the Court’s review of the file, and the State’s representations confirming what the Court has determined, the Order of April 8, 2014 regarding the merits of the case resolved all issues before the Court.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1506-PL-816 |December 2, 2015 Page 4 of 6 4. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion to Correct Errors which Motion is deemed DENIED based upon Trial Rule 53.3[3]. Plaintiff’s remedy was to file an appeal. Plaintiff failed to file. Accordingly, this matter is concluded.

5. The Court finds that any motions filed subsequent to the Order of April 8, 2014 are stricken for the reason that the matter was concluded and there is no relief that can be granted. This cause is hereby disposed based upon the Order of April 8, 2014.

Appellant’s App. p. 20. On May 28, 2015, Taylor filed a motion to correct

error which was denied by the trial court on June 2, 2015.

Discussion and Decision [7] Taylor appeals the trial court’s April 28, 2015 order; however, Taylor does not

raise any claims of error regarding that order. Instead, Taylor raises several

issues regarding the process of special judge appointment and notice thereof.

Taylor argues that (1) Judge Schneider was not allowed to appoint Judge Moss

because Judge Schneider had previously recused herself from the case, (2) Judge

Moss improperly recused herself, (3) Judge Moss erred by failing to properly

appoint a new special judge upon her recusal, (4) Judge Tavitas was improperly

3 “In the event a court fails for forty-five (45) days to set a Motion to Correct Error for hearing, or fails to rule on a Motion to Correct Error within thirty (30) days after it was heard or forty-five (45) days after it was filed, if no hearing is required, the pending Motion to Correct Error shall be deemed denied. Any appeal shall be initiated by filing the notice of appeal under Appellate Rule 9(A) within thirty (30) days after the Motion to Correct Error is deemed denied.” Ind. Trial Rule 53.3.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1506-PL-816 |December 2, 2015 Page 5 of 6 appointed and so all orders issued by her are invalid, and (5) Taylor did not

receive proper notice of the appointment of Judge Tavitas.

[8] Once again, Taylor has made no argument that there was any error in the trial

court’s April 28, 2015; rather, he argues only that Judge Tavitas did not have

proper authority to act as special judge. As noted in the trial court’s April 28,

2015 order, the trial court had resolved all substantive issues in its April 8, 2014

order after which Taylor filed a motion to correct error on May 12, 2014.

Pursuant to Trial Rule 53.3, Taylor’s motion to correct error was denied on

June 26, 2014, forty-five days after the motion was filed. Following the denial

of his motion to correct error, Taylor had thirty days to file an appeal, which he

did not do. See Ind. Trial Rule 53.3. Accordingly, Taylor has waived his ability

to appeal all arguments regarding decisions or actions of the trial court which

occurred prior to the April 8, 2014 order. Because Taylor does not allege any

error with the trial court’s April 28, 2015 order, that order is affirmed.

[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Baker, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1506-PL-816 |December 2, 2015 Page 6 of 6