Christopher E. Washington v. Mark E. Sevier (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 18, 2019
• Docket: 19A-PL-549
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 18 2019, 8:33 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Christopher E. Washington Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Huntington, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Frances Barrow Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

Matthew J. Goldsmith Certified Legal Intern

Michael V. Sherman Certified Legal Intern

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Christopher E. Washington, October 18, 2019 Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-PL-549 v. Appeal from the La Porte Superior Court Mark E. Sevier, The Honorable Jeffrey L. Thorne, Appellee-Respondent Judge Trial Court Cause No. 46D03-1806-PL-813

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-549 | Ocotber 18, 2019 Page 1 of 4 May, Judge.

[1] Christopher E. Washington appeals the denial of his motion to file an amended

complaint and the grant of the State’s motion to dismiss his complaint against

Mark E. Sevier. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On June 11, 2018, Washington, who resides at Westville Correctional Facility,

filed a complaint against Sevier, who is the warden of the Westville

Correctional Facility. Washington alleged neglect stemming from two separate

occurrences: one when Washington fell in the shower and cut his hand; and

the other when Washington fell from his wheelchair and was injured.

Washington’s complaint requested the court award him seven million dollars in

damages.

[3] On September 10, 2018, the State filed a motion to dismiss Washington’s

action, alleging Washington’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which

relief could be granted. On September 19, 2018, Washington filed a motion to

amend his complaint and attached his amended complaint. The trial court

denied Washington’s motion to amend on the same day.

[4] On September 20, 2018, Washington filed his response to the State’s motion to

dismiss. The trial court granted Washington additional time to respond to the

State’s motion to dismiss on December 26, 2018, and on January 7, 2019,

Washington filed another response to the State’s motion to dismiss. On

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-549 | Ocotber 18, 2019 Page 2 of 4 February 6, 2019, the State filed its reply to Washington’s response. On

February 13, 2019, the trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss

Washington’s complaint.

Discussion and Decision [5] On appeal, Washington contends that the trial court erred when it dismissed his

complaint. At the onset, we note Washington appeared before the trial court

and in this appeal as a pro se litigant. 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. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind. Ct. App.

2004), trans. denied. 1

[6] Washington seems to contend the LaPorte Superior Court judge was biased and

prejudiced against him. Specifically, Washington maintains that the judge was

biased against him because the judge did not allow him to amend his complaint

but, rather, dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. We presume a

judge is unbiased. In re Guardianship of Hickman, 805 N.E.2d 808, 814 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2004), trans. denied. “In order to overcome that presumption, the

appellant must demonstrate actual personal bias.” Id. “Merely asserting bias

1 We also note that Washington’s brief wholly fails to comply with Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). Washington fails to set out his contentions supported by cogent reasoning, he does not provide a single citation to the record, and he does not cite any relevant case law. Accordingly, Washington has waived his purported issues on appeal. Waiver notwithstanding, we attempt to address the merits of his argument.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-549 | Ocotber 18, 2019 Page 3 of 4 and prejudice does not make it so.” Smith v. State, 770 N.E.2d 818, 823 (Ind.

2002).

[7] However, Washington has not cited any evidence or case law to support his

argument the trial court erred when it did not allow him to amend his

complaint. Nor does Washington cite any evidence or case law to demonstrate

the trial court’s grant of the State’s motion to dismiss demonstrated bias or

prejudice against him. Thus, his claim fails. See Wright v. Elston, 701 N.E.2d

1227, 1232 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (to prevail on a claim of judicial bias or

prejudice, there must be a showing on the record that discloses actions alleged

to demonstrate bias or prejudice), trans. denied.

Conclusion [8] Washington has not demonstrated the trial court judge was biased or prejudiced

against him, and thus does not prevail in his challenge to the trial court’s orders

to deny his motion to amend his complaint and to grant the State’s motion to

dismiss Washington’s complain. Accordingly, we affirm.

[9] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-549 | Ocotber 18, 2019 Page 4 of 4