Kevin L. Martin v. Marley Hancock

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 22, 2024
• Docket: 23A-PL-00554
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.

FILED Mar 22 2024, 8:47 am

CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

IN THE

Court of Appeals of Indiana Kevin Martin, Appellant-Plaintiff

v.

Marley Hancock, et al., Appellees-Defendants

March 22, 2024 Court of Appeals Case No. 23A-PL-554 Appeal from the LaPorte Superior Court The Honorable Michael A. Fish, Special Judge Trial Court Cause No. 46D02-2008-PL-1407

Memorandum Decision by Judge May Judges Bailey and Felix concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-PL-554 | March 22, 2024 Page 1 of 6 May, Judge.

[1] Kevin Martin appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint against Deputy

Attorney General Marley G. Hancock and St. Joseph County Clerk Terri

Rethlake. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On August 12, 2020, Martin filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section

1983 against Hancock and Rethlake. Therein, as best as we can ascertain,

Martin alleged he was deprived of certain rights as part of a July 2020

deposition Hancock conducted because correctional officers were present

during that deposition. Additionally, Martin asserted he was treated differently

in some way than two other prisoners were treated during depositions. He

claimed this treatment was retaliation for a complaint Martin filed against

Hancock with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. Martin

further argued Hancock and Rethlake were engaged in a conspiracy against

him, though the nature of that conspiracy was not clear. Martin asked the trial

court to award him $500,000.00 in damages and an injunction to have Hancock

removed from all of Martin’s cases. Martin filed an incomplete summons for

Hancock, so the State never received the summons.

[3] In April 2021, Martin filed a motion for default judgment against Hancock.

The trial court scheduled a hearing on Martin’s request for November 23, 2021.

The hearing ultimately was not held, but the parties and court discussed the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-PL-554 | March 22, 2024 Page 2 of 6 case. That discussion seems to have been off the record, though Martin

indicated in a subsequent filing that the State asked the trial court to dismiss the

case because it had not received a summons but to allow Martin the ability to

refile his complaint and complete service on the State. 1 In December 2021,

Martin filed another incomplete summons, although it seems that summons

was delivered to the State at some point.

[4] On December 20, 2022, the State appeared on Hancock’s behalf. On January

23, 2023, Martin filed another motion for default judgment in the case. On

February 3, 2023, the State filed a motion asking the trial court to screen

Martin’s complaint pursuant to Indiana’s Frivolous Claim Law, which requires

the trial court to consider whether Martin’s claim was frivolous, a claim upon

which no relief can be granted, or a claim that “seeks monetary relief from a

defendant that is immune from liability for such relief.” Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2.

The State alleged Martin was “an abusive filer in Indiana courts” and a search

of online court records revealed he had “a long history of making baseless

accusations toward the judges[.]” (App. Vol. II at 29.) Additionally, the State

asked the trial court to dismiss Martin’s complaint under Trial Rules 12(B)(2),

(4), (5), and (6). On February 7, 2023, the trial court dismissed Martin’s claims

with prejudice after “having considered [the States’s] motion and all applicable

filings[.]” (Id. at 15.)

1 The State did not argue this characterization of the discussion with the trial court is incorrect.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-PL-554 | March 22, 2024 Page 3 of 6 Discussion and Decision [5] As an initial matter, we note Martin proceeds pro se. As we noted in one of our

earlier opinions involving Martin, “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.” Martin v. Brown, 129 N.E.3d 283, 284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)

(internal italics omitted). Pro se litigants who do not follow established rules of

procedure “must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do

so.” Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (internal

citations omitted), reh’g denied.

[6] Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) requires an appellant’s brief to contain

“contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent

reasoning.” Here, we are unable to ascertain Martin’s argument regarding the

trial court’s dismissal of his complaint under Indiana Code section 34-58-1-2.

He seems to complain of a lack of light in his cell at the Westville Correctional

Facility, which he claims caused significant vision problems rendering him

unable to properly review legal materials or write. Additionally, he alleges the

trial court judge, Judge Michael Fish, committed some sort of misconduct.

Finally, he contends a guard at the Westville Correctional Facility

discriminated against him based on his race. While he claims he is appealing

the trial court’s order dismissing his complaint, he makes little argument

regarding that specific issue. His brief is handwritten and barely legible in some

areas. We cannot understand why he is challenging the trial court’s dismissal

of his claim or what case law might support any claim he may have.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-PL-554 | March 22, 2024 Page 4 of 6 [7] While we prefer to decide cases on their merits, alleged errors are waived when

an appellant’s noncompliance with the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure is

so substantial it impedes our appellate consideration of the errors. Perry v.

Anonymous Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans.

denied. Here, we are unable to determine whether any of Martin’s arguments

have merit because they are so unintelligible. Moreover, none of his assertions

on appeal seem to address the viability of the complaint dismissed by the trial

court. Therefore, his egregious violation of Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a)

substantially impedes our review of any issues he attempts to raise and thus

waives the issues he purports to present from our review. See, e.g., Martin v.

Hunt, 130 N.E.3d 135, 138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (issue waived for violations of

Indiana Appellate Rules to the extent that we were unable to ascertain Martin’s

argument).

Conclusion [8] As Martin has not presented a cogent argument, any issues he attempted to

present on appeal are waived. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal

of his claims.

[9] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Felix, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-PL-554 | March 22, 2024 Page 5 of 6 APPELLANT PRO SE Kevin Martin Pendleton Correctional Facility Pendleton, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana David E. Corey Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-PL-554 | March 22, 2024 Page 6 of 6