MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Apr 12 2017, 10:36 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), CLERK this Memorandum Decision shall not be Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals regarded as precedent or cited before any and Tax Court
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 APPELLEES Gerald Lee Doll Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Michigan City, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Andrea E. Rahman Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Gerald Lee Doll, April 12, 2017 Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No. 91A02-1611-PL-2748 v. Appeal from the White Circuit Court Robert Guy, White County The Honorable Robert W. Prosecutor and the State of Thacker, Judge Indiana, Trial Court Cause No. Appellees-Respondents 91C01-1608-PL-21
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1611-PL-2748 | April 12, 2017 Page 1 of 6 [1] Gerald Lee Doll, pro se, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his small
claims complaint.
Facts & Procedural History
[2] On September 4, 2012, Doll pled guilty to robbery resulting in bodily injury,
robbery, and resisting law enforcement. Doll v. State, 91A02-1602-CR-259 (Ind.
Ct. App. July 13, 2016). Doll was later sentenced to thirty years imprisonment.
Id. Doll is currently incarcerated in the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City,
which is located in La Porte County.
[3] On August 23, 2016, Doll filed a small claims complaint in the White Circuit
Court against Robert Guy, in his official capacity as the White County
Prosecutor. With his complaint, Doll sought to obtain $1,500,000.1 Doll
alternatively titled his complaint as a Writ of Habeas Corpus and therein
requested his immediate release from prison. The certificate of service
accompanying Doll’s pleading indicates that Doll sent a copy thereof to Guy
via first class mail on August 19, 2016. There is no receipt in the record
showing that Doll’s small claims complaint was ever delivered to Guy.
[4] On September 9, 2016, Doll filed a “Constructive Legal Notice Discovery”
along with an affidavit of debt. On November 2, 2016, Doll filed a notice with
1 Specifically, Doll alleged that the damages sought are “United States Dollar Value listed @ 1,150,000.00/100 in a deferred debt unknown to Claimant, Re-venue in International Monetary Units (negative numbers, based on accrual accounting, qualifying as small claim[)].” Appellant’s Appendix at 13.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1611-PL-2748 | April 12, 2017 Page 2 of 6 the court invoking Ind. Trial Rule 53.1 because the court had not ruled on his
September 9 discovery request within thirty days of the filing. On November
16, 2016, the Indiana Supreme Court issued a determination that withdrawal of
the case was not warranted. That same day, after receiving the Supreme
Court’s determination, the trial court issued a CCS Entry and Order stating:
the Court has no jurisdiction and no authority to rule on or decide [Doll]’s motions or requests for the reason that the pleadings filed in the case by [Doll] have never been served upon any defendant pursuant to the Trial Rules, and further for the reason that the pleadings are nonsense and unable to be understood.
Appellant’s Brief at 16. Doll appeals from this order. Additional facts will be
provided as necessary.
Discussion & Decision
[5] “The existence of personal jurisdiction . . . is . . . a constitutional requirement to
rendering a valid judgment, mandated by the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Anderson v. Wayne
Post 64, Am. Legion Corp., 4 N.E.3d 1200, 1206 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting
Munster v. Groce, 829 N.E.2d 52, 57 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)), trans. denied. A trial
court does not acquire personal jurisdiction over a party if service of process is
inadequate. King v. United Leasing, Inc., 765 N.E.2d 1287, 1290 (Ind. Ct. App.
2002). Because the matter of personal jurisdiction is a question of law, our
review is de novo. Munster, 829 N.E.2d at 57.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1611-PL-2748 | April 12, 2017 Page 3 of 6 [6] Under Ind. Small Claims Rule 3(A), a defendant shall be properly served by: (1)
“sending a copy by certified mail with return receipt requested,” (2) “delivering
a copy to the defendant personally,” (3) “leaving a copy at the defendant’s
dwelling or house or usual place of abode,” or (4) in any other manner provided
by Ind. Trial P. Rules 4.1 through 4.16. T.R. 4.1(A)(1) provides:
Service may be made upon an individual, or an individual acting in a representative capacity, by:
(1) sending a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail or other public means by which a written acknowledgment of receipt may be requested and obtained to his residence, place of business or employment with return receipt requested and returned showing receipt of the letter; or
[7] Pursuant to both of these rules, when serving a defendant by mail, the
complaint must be sent by registered or certified mail or some other public
means that allows for a written acknowledgment confirming that the complaint
was received. There are five certificates of service referring to various filings
made by Doll, only one of which, dated August 18, 2016, refers to the small
claims complaint. The August 18 certificate of service indicates that the small
claims complaint was mailed to Guy via first class mail, not certified or registered
mail. Further, there is no record of a return receipt showing that the complaint
was received by Guy. Because the complaint was not served via certified or
registered mail, and there is no return receipt in the record, the complaint was
not properly served. See Anderson v. Wayne Post 64, Am. Legion Corp., 4 N.E.3d
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1611-PL-2748 | April 12, 2017 Page 4 of 6 1200, 1206 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (holding that “leaving the summons and
complaint at a building at the address listed for the registered agent, and
following that attempt at service with copy service by first class mail” was not
proper service); Eicher v. Walter A. Doerflein Ins. Agency, 179 Ind. App. 184, 185,
384 N.E.2d 1126, 1126 (1979) (“[s]ervice of notice of claim by ‘registered or
certified mail with return receipt requested’ requires a return showing receipt of
such notice”). Because there was insufficient service, the trial court correctly
determined that it did not have jurisdiction over Guy. See Anderson, 4 N.E.2d at
1210 (holding that where service of process was inadequate as a matter of law,
trial court did not have jurisdiction over defendant).
[8] We further note, as did the trial court, that the legal basis for Doll’s small
claims complaint for $1,500,000 is unclear. Doll does make one discernable
request for relief: “to Immediately Release the Secured Party Creditor Gerald
Lee Doll™ being held unjustly as Surety for the Debtor Gerald Lee Doll™
under No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Apr 12 2017, 10:36 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), CLERK this Memorandum Decision shall not be Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals regarded as precedent or cited before any and Tax Court
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 APPELLEES Gerald Lee Doll Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Michigan City, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Andrea E. Rahman Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Gerald Lee Doll, April 12, 2017 Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No. 91A02-1611-PL-2748 v. Appeal from the White Circuit Court Robert Guy, White County The Honorable Robert W. Prosecutor and the State of Thacker, Judge Indiana, Trial Court Cause No. Appellees-Respondents 91C01-1608-PL-21
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1611-PL-2748 | April 12, 2017 Page 1 of 6 [1] Gerald Lee Doll, pro se, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his small
claims complaint.
Facts & Procedural History
[2] On September 4, 2012, Doll pled guilty to robbery resulting in bodily injury,
robbery, and resisting law enforcement. Doll v. State, 91A02-1602-CR-259 (Ind.
Ct. App. July 13, 2016). Doll was later sentenced to thirty years imprisonment.
Id. Doll is currently incarcerated in the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City,
which is located in La Porte County.
[3] On August 23, 2016, Doll filed a small claims complaint in the White Circuit
Court against Robert Guy, in his official capacity as the White County
Prosecutor. With his complaint, Doll sought to obtain $1,500,000.1 Doll
alternatively titled his complaint as a Writ of Habeas Corpus and therein
requested his immediate release from prison. The certificate of service
accompanying Doll’s pleading indicates that Doll sent a copy thereof to Guy
via first class mail on August 19, 2016. There is no receipt in the record
showing that Doll’s small claims complaint was ever delivered to Guy.
[4] On September 9, 2016, Doll filed a “Constructive Legal Notice Discovery”
along with an affidavit of debt. On November 2, 2016, Doll filed a notice with
1 Specifically, Doll alleged that the damages sought are “United States Dollar Value listed @ 1,150,000.00/100 in a deferred debt unknown to Claimant, Re-venue in International Monetary Units (negative numbers, based on accrual accounting, qualifying as small claim[)].” Appellant’s Appendix at 13.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1611-PL-2748 | April 12, 2017 Page 2 of 6 the court invoking Ind. Trial Rule 53.1 because the court had not ruled on his
September 9 discovery request within thirty days of the filing. On November
16, 2016, the Indiana Supreme Court issued a determination that withdrawal of
the case was not warranted. That same day, after receiving the Supreme
Court’s determination, the trial court issued a CCS Entry and Order stating:
the Court has no jurisdiction and no authority to rule on or decide [Doll]’s motions or requests for the reason that the pleadings filed in the case by [Doll] have never been served upon any defendant pursuant to the Trial Rules, and further for the reason that the pleadings are nonsense and unable to be understood.
Appellant’s Brief at 16. Doll appeals from this order. Additional facts will be
provided as necessary.
Discussion & Decision
[5] “The existence of personal jurisdiction . . . is . . . a constitutional requirement to
rendering a valid judgment, mandated by the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Anderson v. Wayne
Post 64, Am. Legion Corp., 4 N.E.3d 1200, 1206 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting
Munster v. Groce, 829 N.E.2d 52, 57 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)), trans. denied. A trial
court does not acquire personal jurisdiction over a party if service of process is
inadequate. King v. United Leasing, Inc., 765 N.E.2d 1287, 1290 (Ind. Ct. App.
2002). Because the matter of personal jurisdiction is a question of law, our
review is de novo. Munster, 829 N.E.2d at 57.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1611-PL-2748 | April 12, 2017 Page 3 of 6 [6] Under Ind. Small Claims Rule 3(A), a defendant shall be properly served by: (1)
“sending a copy by certified mail with return receipt requested,” (2) “delivering
a copy to the defendant personally,” (3) “leaving a copy at the defendant’s
dwelling or house or usual place of abode,” or (4) in any other manner provided
by Ind. Trial P. Rules 4.1 through 4.16. T.R. 4.1(A)(1) provides:
Service may be made upon an individual, or an individual acting in a representative capacity, by:
(1) sending a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail or other public means by which a written acknowledgment of receipt may be requested and obtained to his residence, place of business or employment with return receipt requested and returned showing receipt of the letter; or
[7] Pursuant to both of these rules, when serving a defendant by mail, the
complaint must be sent by registered or certified mail or some other public
means that allows for a written acknowledgment confirming that the complaint
was received. There are five certificates of service referring to various filings
made by Doll, only one of which, dated August 18, 2016, refers to the small
claims complaint. The August 18 certificate of service indicates that the small
claims complaint was mailed to Guy via first class mail, not certified or registered
mail. Further, there is no record of a return receipt showing that the complaint
was received by Guy. Because the complaint was not served via certified or
registered mail, and there is no return receipt in the record, the complaint was
not properly served. See Anderson v. Wayne Post 64, Am. Legion Corp., 4 N.E.3d
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1611-PL-2748 | April 12, 2017 Page 4 of 6 1200, 1206 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (holding that “leaving the summons and
complaint at a building at the address listed for the registered agent, and
following that attempt at service with copy service by first class mail” was not
proper service); Eicher v. Walter A. Doerflein Ins. Agency, 179 Ind. App. 184, 185,
384 N.E.2d 1126, 1126 (1979) (“[s]ervice of notice of claim by ‘registered or
certified mail with return receipt requested’ requires a return showing receipt of
such notice”). Because there was insufficient service, the trial court correctly
determined that it did not have jurisdiction over Guy. See Anderson, 4 N.E.2d at
1210 (holding that where service of process was inadequate as a matter of law,
trial court did not have jurisdiction over defendant).
[8] We further note, as did the trial court, that the legal basis for Doll’s small
claims complaint for $1,500,000 is unclear. Doll does make one discernable
request for relief: “to Immediately Release the Secured Party Creditor Gerald
Lee Doll™ being held unjustly as Surety for the Debtor Gerald Lee Doll™
under No. 230225™ from the Indiana Department of Correction.” Appellant’s
Appendix at 28. As noted above, Doll alternatively titled his petition as a “Writ
of Habeas Corpus” and expressly states that he is seeking his immediate release
from the Indiana State Prison. To the extent his complaint may be taken as a
writ of habeas corpus2 rather than a small claims complaint, the court was
likewise without jurisdiction. A writ for habeas corpus may be granted by “the
2 See Ind. Code § 34-25.5-1-1 (“[e]very person whose liberty is restrained, under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the restraint, and shall be delivered from the restraint if the restraint is illegal”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1611-PL-2748 | April 12, 2017 Page 5 of 6 circuit or superior courts of the county in which the person applying for the writ
may be restrained of his or her liberty, or by the judges of those courts.” I.C. §
34-25.5-2-2. Here, Doll is being held at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan
City, which is located in LaPorte County. Thus, to the extent Doll’s petition
could be deemed a writ of habeas corpus, the White County Circuit Court was
without jurisdiction to consider such as Doll was being held in LaPorte County.
See State ex rel. Howard v. Hamilton Circuit Court, 224 Ind. 220, 224, 66 N.E.2d
62, 63 (1946).
[9] Finally, we note that Doll’s arguments regarding venue are difficult to
understand and irrelevant to the issue presented. It is clear from Doll’s brief on
appeal that he does not understand the import of the trial court’s determination
that it lacked jurisdiction.
[10] Judgment affirmed.
Kirsch, J. and Mathis, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1611-PL-2748 | April 12, 2017 Page 6 of 6