FILED Jul 18 2025, 9:00 am
CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court
IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana Michael Parker, Appellant-Plaintiff
v.
Indiana State Prison, Appellee-Defendant
July 18, 2025 Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-SC-1197 Appeal from the LaPorte Superior Court The Honorable John A. Link, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 46D04-2312-SC-2013
Opinion by Judge Pyle Judges Weissmann and Felix concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-1197 | July 18, 2025 Page 1 of 10 Pyle, Judge.
Statement of the Case [1] Michael Parker (“Parker”), pro se, appeals the small claims court’s judgment
that found the Indiana State Prison (“the prison”) liable for the loss of Parker’s
property but also found that Parker had not sufficiently proven his damages.
Parker argues that the small claims court erred when it did not award him
damages. Concluding that the small claims court clearly erred when it awarded
Parker $0 for his lost items purchased through a prison vendor and the prison
commissary but did not clearly err when it did not award Parker damages for
his lost wedding band, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with
instructions.
[2] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
Issue Whether the small claims court clearly erred when it did not award Parker damages.
Facts1 [3] Parker is an inmate at the prison. In May 2022, prison staff moved Parker from
his cell in the general population to administrative restrictive housing. As a
result of that move, prison staff inventoried and stored some of Parker’s
1 We note that Parker failed to file an appendix on appeal in violation of Appellate Rule 50. However, the State filed an appendix along with its brief. All citations to the appendix are to the Appellee’s appendix.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-1197 | July 18, 2025 Page 2 of 10 property. When Parker returned to a cell in the general population and the
prison staff returned his inventoried belongings, Parker realized that some of his
belongings were missing.
[4] Parker submitted a theft report, grievance, and a tort claim with the prison
alleging that his items had been lost. Specifically, in his initial tort claim,
Parker alleged that replacing his lost belongings would cost roughly $667.05.
The prison found and returned some of Parker’s belongings, but some
belongings remained missing. In April 2023, Parker filed another tort claim. In
his claim, Parker listed the specific items that he believed had been lost by
prison staff and the value of each item. Parker calculated the total cost of the
items to be $630.82. Parker’s list included: (1) a wedding band valued at $499
and $34.93 in taxes; (2) three rolls of scotch tape valued at $10.65, $0.75 in
taxes, and $19.95 in shipping costs; (3) a digital watch valued at $16.62; (4)
paper plates valued at $2.31; (5) two picture tickets valued at $2.44; (6) a three-
foot coax cable valued at $5.57; (7) a poncho valued at $5.04; (8) an eight-inch
fan valued at $33.57; and (9) a craft card with no value listed. Parker
determined the value of the wedding band based on the price that he stated he
had paid for the item. It appears that the remainder of the items were
calculated by Parker based on the replacement cost of the items if purchased
from a prison vendor called NASCO and the prison commissary. Parker did
not receive any relief from the prison based on his allegations that the prison
had lost some of his personal property.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-1197 | July 18, 2025 Page 3 of 10 [5] In December 2023, Parker, pro se, filed a notice of claim against the prison with
the small claims court. In his notice of claim, Parker argued that the prison was
negligent in storing his personal property and was liable for the loss of his
personal property in the amount of $637.21. In January 2024, the small claims
court ordered the case to be tried by affidavit. Parker filed his affidavit and
supporting evidence in February 2024. Parker averred that the prison had lost
his personal property when it had moved him to administrative restrictive
housing. In his affidavit, Parker included his handwritten tort claim from April
2023. Thus, Parker’s affidavit contained the same list of missing personal
property with their replacement costs as stated above. In his affidavit, Parker
also averred that he did not have a receipt for his wedding band because there
had been “no reason” for Parker to have brought “a receipt to prison for it[.]”
(App. Vol. 2 at 22). Parker further averred that aside from the wedding band
and the scotch tape, all of his remaining missing items had been “purchased
through the ISP commissary and while [he] had [his] commissary receipts, they
were apparently thrown away” when his property had been packed up and
inventoried. (App. Vol. 2 at 22). Parker averred that the prison should have
records of these purchases.
[6] The State filed its affidavit and supporting evidence in April 2024. In its
affidavit, the State focused its arguments on the liability issue. The State argued
that Parker had failed to prove “the legal standards for negligence . . . or any
other legal theory.” (App. Vol. 2 at 74-75). The State further argued that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-1197 | July 18, 2025 Page 4 of 10 Parker had “failed to meet his burden of proof” for his damages because his
damages were based on “speculation or conjecture.” (App. Vol. 2 at 74).
[7] Parker filed a rebuttal to the State’s affidavit and supporting evidence. In his
rebuttal, Parker conceded that he had no receipt for his wedding band. Parker
also acknowledged that he had no commissary receipts for his other items
because those receipts were likely discarded when the prison staff inventoried
his property for storage. Parker included with his rebuttal a receipt from
NASCO showing the cost of the three rolls of scotch tape. The receipt was
dated approximately four months before the prison staff had inventoried and
stored Parker’s personal property.
[8] In May 2024, the small claims court issued an order finding the prison liable to
Parker for the loss of his personal property and finding that Parker had not
sufficiently proven his damages. The small claims court noted that replacement
costs were not appropriate for damages of lost personal property. The small
claims court further noted that Parker had “only provided replacement costs for
his lost or stolen property and [had] failed to provide any proof of the fair
market value of his lost or stolen property.” (App. Vol. 2 at 106).
[9] Parker now appeals.
Decision [10] At the outset, we note that Parker has chosen to proceed pro se. It is well
settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed
attorneys. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-1197 | July 18, 2025 Page 5 of 10 denied. Thus, pro se litigants are bound to follow the established rules of
procedure and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to
do so. Id.
[11] Parker argues that the small claims court erred when it found that he had not
sufficiently proven his damages. Judgments in small claims actions are
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED Jul 18 2025, 9:00 am
CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court
IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana Michael Parker, Appellant-Plaintiff
v.
Indiana State Prison, Appellee-Defendant
July 18, 2025 Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-SC-1197 Appeal from the LaPorte Superior Court The Honorable John A. Link, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 46D04-2312-SC-2013
Opinion by Judge Pyle Judges Weissmann and Felix concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-1197 | July 18, 2025 Page 1 of 10 Pyle, Judge.
Statement of the Case [1] Michael Parker (“Parker”), pro se, appeals the small claims court’s judgment
that found the Indiana State Prison (“the prison”) liable for the loss of Parker’s
property but also found that Parker had not sufficiently proven his damages.
Parker argues that the small claims court erred when it did not award him
damages. Concluding that the small claims court clearly erred when it awarded
Parker $0 for his lost items purchased through a prison vendor and the prison
commissary but did not clearly err when it did not award Parker damages for
his lost wedding band, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with
instructions.
[2] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
Issue Whether the small claims court clearly erred when it did not award Parker damages.
Facts1 [3] Parker is an inmate at the prison. In May 2022, prison staff moved Parker from
his cell in the general population to administrative restrictive housing. As a
result of that move, prison staff inventoried and stored some of Parker’s
1 We note that Parker failed to file an appendix on appeal in violation of Appellate Rule 50. However, the State filed an appendix along with its brief. All citations to the appendix are to the Appellee’s appendix.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-1197 | July 18, 2025 Page 2 of 10 property. When Parker returned to a cell in the general population and the
prison staff returned his inventoried belongings, Parker realized that some of his
belongings were missing.
[4] Parker submitted a theft report, grievance, and a tort claim with the prison
alleging that his items had been lost. Specifically, in his initial tort claim,
Parker alleged that replacing his lost belongings would cost roughly $667.05.
The prison found and returned some of Parker’s belongings, but some
belongings remained missing. In April 2023, Parker filed another tort claim. In
his claim, Parker listed the specific items that he believed had been lost by
prison staff and the value of each item. Parker calculated the total cost of the
items to be $630.82. Parker’s list included: (1) a wedding band valued at $499
and $34.93 in taxes; (2) three rolls of scotch tape valued at $10.65, $0.75 in
taxes, and $19.95 in shipping costs; (3) a digital watch valued at $16.62; (4)
paper plates valued at $2.31; (5) two picture tickets valued at $2.44; (6) a three-
foot coax cable valued at $5.57; (7) a poncho valued at $5.04; (8) an eight-inch
fan valued at $33.57; and (9) a craft card with no value listed. Parker
determined the value of the wedding band based on the price that he stated he
had paid for the item. It appears that the remainder of the items were
calculated by Parker based on the replacement cost of the items if purchased
from a prison vendor called NASCO and the prison commissary. Parker did
not receive any relief from the prison based on his allegations that the prison
had lost some of his personal property.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-1197 | July 18, 2025 Page 3 of 10 [5] In December 2023, Parker, pro se, filed a notice of claim against the prison with
the small claims court. In his notice of claim, Parker argued that the prison was
negligent in storing his personal property and was liable for the loss of his
personal property in the amount of $637.21. In January 2024, the small claims
court ordered the case to be tried by affidavit. Parker filed his affidavit and
supporting evidence in February 2024. Parker averred that the prison had lost
his personal property when it had moved him to administrative restrictive
housing. In his affidavit, Parker included his handwritten tort claim from April
2023. Thus, Parker’s affidavit contained the same list of missing personal
property with their replacement costs as stated above. In his affidavit, Parker
also averred that he did not have a receipt for his wedding band because there
had been “no reason” for Parker to have brought “a receipt to prison for it[.]”
(App. Vol. 2 at 22). Parker further averred that aside from the wedding band
and the scotch tape, all of his remaining missing items had been “purchased
through the ISP commissary and while [he] had [his] commissary receipts, they
were apparently thrown away” when his property had been packed up and
inventoried. (App. Vol. 2 at 22). Parker averred that the prison should have
records of these purchases.
[6] The State filed its affidavit and supporting evidence in April 2024. In its
affidavit, the State focused its arguments on the liability issue. The State argued
that Parker had failed to prove “the legal standards for negligence . . . or any
other legal theory.” (App. Vol. 2 at 74-75). The State further argued that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-1197 | July 18, 2025 Page 4 of 10 Parker had “failed to meet his burden of proof” for his damages because his
damages were based on “speculation or conjecture.” (App. Vol. 2 at 74).
[7] Parker filed a rebuttal to the State’s affidavit and supporting evidence. In his
rebuttal, Parker conceded that he had no receipt for his wedding band. Parker
also acknowledged that he had no commissary receipts for his other items
because those receipts were likely discarded when the prison staff inventoried
his property for storage. Parker included with his rebuttal a receipt from
NASCO showing the cost of the three rolls of scotch tape. The receipt was
dated approximately four months before the prison staff had inventoried and
stored Parker’s personal property.
[8] In May 2024, the small claims court issued an order finding the prison liable to
Parker for the loss of his personal property and finding that Parker had not
sufficiently proven his damages. The small claims court noted that replacement
costs were not appropriate for damages of lost personal property. The small
claims court further noted that Parker had “only provided replacement costs for
his lost or stolen property and [had] failed to provide any proof of the fair
market value of his lost or stolen property.” (App. Vol. 2 at 106).
[9] Parker now appeals.
Decision [10] At the outset, we note that Parker has chosen to proceed pro se. It is well
settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed
attorneys. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-1197 | July 18, 2025 Page 5 of 10 denied. Thus, pro se litigants are bound to follow the established rules of
procedure and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to
do so. Id.
[11] Parker argues that the small claims court erred when it found that he had not
sufficiently proven his damages. Judgments in small claims actions are
“‘subject to review as prescribed by relevant Indiana rules and statutes. ’” Hetty
Incorporated v. Weems, 237 N.E.3d 701, 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting Ind.
Small Claims Rule 11(A)), reh’g denied. “We review facts from a bench trial
under the clearly erroneous standard.” Hetty, 237 N.E.3d at 704 (cleaned up).
“The small claims court is the sole judge of the evidence and the credibility of
witnesses, and on appeal we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the
credibility of the witnesses.” Heartland Crossing Found., Inc. v. Dotlich, 976
N.E.2d 760, 762 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
[12] “This deferential standard of review is particularly important in small claims
actions, where trials are designed to speedily dispense justice by applying
substantive law between the parties in an informal setting.” Berryhill v. Parkview
Hosp., 962 N.E.2d 685, 689 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). Although the method of
proof may be informal, the party bearing the burden of proof must demonstrate
that he is entitled to the recovery sought. Spainhower v. Smart & Kessler, LLC,
176 N.E.3d 258, 263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), reh’g denied, trans. denied.
[13] The crux of Parker’s argument is that he had sufficiently proven his damages
for his lost personal property and thus, the small claims court had clearly erred
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-1197 | July 18, 2025 Page 6 of 10 when it found that he was not entitled to damages. “‘It is a well-established
principle that damages are awarded to fairly and adequately compensate an
injured party for h[is] loss, and the proper measure of damages must be flexible
enough to fit the circumstances. ’” Bokori v. Martinoski, 70 N.E.3d 441, 444 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Bader v. Johnson, 732 N.E.2d 1212, 1220 (Ind. 2000))
(emphasis added). “In tort actions generally, all damages directly related to the
wrong and arising without an intervening agency are recoverable.” Bader, 732
N.E.2d at 1220.
[14] “The general rule is that a plaintiff’s compensatory damages for property
destroyed by a tortfeasor shall be the fair market value of the property at the
time of loss.” Bokori, 70 N.E.3d at 444. “Fair market value is defined as the
value a willing seller will accept from a willing buyer for a good.” Id.
“Evidence of fair market value may include the plaintiff’s testimony, the price
paid upon purchase, testimony from skilled witnesses, and other competent
forms of evidence.” Id. A plaintiff must bear the burden of proving the fair
market value of the property. Campins v. Capels, 461 N.E.2d 712, 719 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1984). “We note that a factfinder may not award damages on the mere
basis of conjecture or speculation.” Noble Roman’s, Inc. v. Ward, 760 N.E.2d
1132, 1140 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
[15] Here, the small claims court found that the prison was liable for the loss of
Parker’s personal property. But, the small claims court awarded no damages to
Parker because he had provided replacement costs for his lost personal property
and did not provide fair market value for his personal property. We believe that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-1197 | July 18, 2025 Page 7 of 10 the small claims court applied the general rule for damages of lost personal
property too narrowly here.
[16] As stated above, evidence of fair market value can be shown through, among
other options, the plaintiff’s testimony, purchase price, and other competent
forms of evidence. Bokori, 70 N.E.3d at 444. Here, Parker’s affidavit showed
that the values he had listed for his lost personal property, with the exception of
the wedding band, were replacement costs. Parker’s affidavit noted that these
replacement costs were based on the cost of the items if purchased from the
NASCO vendor and from the prison’s commissary. Additionally, Parker
included a receipt from NASCO that showed the cost of the scotch tape four
months before his property had been inventoried by the prison staff. In these
circumstances, the fair market value, the price a willing seller would sell to a
willing buyer, may be limited to the costs of items sold by NASCO or the prison
commissary. “A plaintiff should not receive a recovery that constitutes a
windfall[,]” see id., and in this case, Parker receiving the replacement cost of his
lost property would not constitute a windfall. Given that the measure of
damages should be “flexible enough to fit the circumstances[,]” see id., we hold
that the small claims court clearly erred when it had awarded Parker $0 in
damages. Thus, we remand with instructions to the small claims court to enter
a damages amount representing the fair market value of the lost personal
property based on the replacement cost of these items if purchased from
NASCO or the prison commissary.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-1197 | July 18, 2025 Page 8 of 10 [17] Turning to the wedding band, Parker’s affidavit asserted that the purchase price
of the item was $499. On appeal, Parker cites to the Campins case for the
proposition that, for an item that was “unique or possessed qualities, the special
nature of which could only be appreciated by the owner[,]” the trial court could
consider elements such as “cost of replacement, original cost[,] and cost to
reproduce[.]” Campins, 461 N.E.2d at 721. But, Campins is distinguishable.
[18] In Campins, the plaintiff sued for damages after the loss of three championship
rings awarded to plaintiff for winning three distinct automobile competitions.
The rings were customized to the winners of the competitions, and they bore
engravings of the recipient’s name, type of achievement, and the year of the
achievement. The rings also bore the emblem of the United States Auto Club.
A different ring was made each year for competition winners and these rings
could not be purchased in the free market. The plaintiff also testified that the
price of gold had doubled since the rings had been made. The plaintiff testified
that he, several years earlier, had purchased a duplicate ring for a business
associate for $349. However, the plaintiff also testified that he would not sell
the rings, even for $1,500 or $2,000 each. These facts were testified to at length
by the plaintiff in the Campins case. The Campins Court, on appeal, awarded the
plaintiff $750 for each destroyed ring, a value higher than the ring’s fair market
value. Id. at 722. In doing so, the Campins Court acknowledged the substantial
evidence regarding the replacement value of the rings, the increase in the price
of gold, and the plaintiff’s sentimental feeling attached to the rings. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-1197 | July 18, 2025 Page 9 of 10 [19] In contrast, the only information the small claims court had here was Parker’s
affidavit claiming that he had purchased his wedding band for $499. Parker’s
wedding band is distinguishable from the championship rings in Campins due to
the lack of evidence regarding the value of Parker’s wedding band. See id. at 721
(noting that “a wide range of evidence” such as cost of replacement, original
cost, cost to reproduce, and sentimental value would “give[] the trier of fact
sufficient latitude to intelligently determine the amount of damages”). Here,
Parker’s range of evidence is insufficient. While we recognize the particular
difficulties an incarcerated individual faces in gathering evidence of this type
from a prison cell, the burden still rests upon the plaintiff and we are not
persuaded to carve out an exception on these facts. Thus, the trial court did not
clearly err when it did not award Parker damages to replace his wedding band.
[20] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
Weissmann, J., and Felix, J., concur.
APPELLANT, PRO SE Michael Parker Michigan City, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Evan Matthew Comer Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-1197 | July 18, 2025 Page 10 of 10