Kevin Martin v. Richard Brown (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 15, 2019
• Docket: 18A-CT-2940
• 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 Mar 15 2019, 11:09 am

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

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Kevin Martin Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Wabash Valley Correctional Facility Attorney General Carlisle, Indiana Natalie F. Weiss Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kevin Martin, March 15, 2019 Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CT-2940 v. Appeal from the Sullivan Superior Court Richard Brown, et. al., The Honorable Hugh R. Hunt, Appellees-Defendants Judge Trial Court Cause No. 77D01-1807-CT-361

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-2940 | March 15, 2019 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] Kevin Martin, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility

(“WVCF”), appeals the trial court’s order entering judgment on the pleadings

and dismissing with prejudice his complaint filed against Richard Brown,

Charles Dugan, Michelle Martin, and Jerricha Meeks (collectively “the

Defendants”).1 He makes various assertions of trial court error. Concluding

that he has waived our review of these alleged errors, we affirm.

Discussion and Decision [2] We begin by noting that Martin proceeds pro se. A litigant who proceeds pro se

is held to the same rules of procedure that trained counsel is bound to follow

Smith v. Donahue, 907 N.E.2d 553, 555 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied, cert.

dismissed. Pro se litigants are afforded no inherent leniency simply by virtue of

being self-represented. Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 266 (Ind. 2014). One

risk a litigant takes when he proceeds pro se is that he will not know how to

accomplish all the things an attorney would know how to accomplish. Smith,

907 N.E.2d at 555. When a party elects to represent himself, there is no reason

for us to indulge in any benevolent presumption on his behalf or to waive any

rule for the orderly and proper conduct of the appeal. Foley v. Mannor, 844

N.E.2d 494, 496 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

1 From what we can gather, it appears that each of the Defendants is or was an employee or official of WVCF. Martin’s complaint appears to allege a tort claim against the Defendants as well as claims for violations of his civil rights.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-2940 | March 15, 2019 Page 2 of 4 [3] Although failure to comply with the appellate rules does not necessarily result

in waiver of the issues presented, it is appropriate where, as here, such

noncompliance substantially impedes our review. In re Moeder, 27 N.E.3d 1089,

1097 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. First, Indiana Appellate Rule 43(C)

states that an appellate brief “shall be produced in a neat and legible manner[.]”

Much of the handwritten text in Martin’s fourteen-page appellate brief and his

ninety-seven-page appendix is virtually illegible. Consequently, there are

countless words and sentences that we are unable to decipher or understand.

[4] Additionally, Martin’s appellate brief contains no statement of case or

statement of facts as required by Indiana Appellate Rules 46(A)(5) and -(A)(6).

Accordingly, we have been provided no explanation of “the nature of the case,

the course of proceedings relevant to the issues presented for review, and the

disposition of these issues by the trial court[,]” and we have been provided no

“facts relevant to the issues presented for review.” Ind. Appellate Rules

46(A)(5), -(A)(6). Moreover, Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8) requires that

contentions in an appellant’s brief be supported by cogent reasoning and

citations to authorities, statutes, and the appendix or parts of the record on

appeal. Martin’s brief is replete with bald statements and assertions

unsupported by cogent argument. The mere citation to legal authority in

support of an argument is insufficient if it is not also supported by cogent

reasoning.

[5] We will not search the record to find a basis for a party’s argument, nor will we

search the authorities cited by a party in order to find legal support for his

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-2940 | March 15, 2019 Page 3 of 4 position. Thomas v. State, 965 N.E.2d 70, 77 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). In short,

this Court will “not become an advocate for a party, or address arguments that

are inappropriate or too poorly developed or expressed to be understood.” Basic

v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 984 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Failure to abide by our

appellate rules of procedure has resulted in waiver of Martin’s claims on appeal.

See, e.g., Wingate v. State, 900 N.E.2d 468, 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). We affirm

the trial court in all respects.

[6] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-2940 | March 15, 2019 Page 4 of 4