Thomas R. Cox v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 29, 2015
• Docket: 39A04-1402-MI-88
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. Jan 29 2015, 9:47 am

APPELLANT PRO SE Thomas R. Cox Panama City, Florida

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Thomas R. Cox, January 29, 2015

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No. 39A04-1402-MI-88 v. Appeal from the Jefferson Superior Court The Honorable Alison Frazier Indiana Bureau of Motor Cause No. 39D01-1310-MI-945 Vehicles, Appellee-Plaintiff

Bailey, Judge.

[1] Thomas R. Cox (“Cox”), proceeding pro se, appealed the trial court’s dismissal

of his claims against the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”). On

March 21, 2014, during the pendency of the appeal, Cox had filed a motion

captioned as a “motion for correction,” which this Court’s motions panel

ordered held in abeyance. On November 19, 2014, this Court entered its

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Decision on Rehearing 39A04-1402-MI-88 | January 29, 2015 Page 1 of 3 opinion on Cox’s appeal affirming the trial court’s decision, but did not enter an

order on the motion for correction. See Cox v. Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Slip

Op., Cause No. 39A04-1402-MI-00088.

[2] On January 10, 2015, Cox filed his notice of an outstanding motion, seeking a

ruling on the motion for correction. We construe Cox’s notice as a petition for

rehearing, which we grant today for the sole purpose of ruling on Cox’s

previously unaddressed motion for correction.

[3] Cox’s motion, and his petition for rehearing, contend that Cox’s license

suspension “was caused by the BMV’s continuing negligence to clear court

orders.” (Pet’n at 2.) He accordingly requests, “Release the suspensions you

have no right to carry…. Ten years ago, you screwed up, BMV, and have since

continued…. Do the right thing and act on this motion outstanding for over

half a year.” (Pet’n at 3.)

[4] As best we can discern, Cox’s petition is addressed to the BMV more than to

this Court. Even construed as addressed to this Court, Cox’s petition requests

relief we cannot grant. Cox’s trial-level contentions centered on constitutional

and tort claims, the dismissal of which we affirmed in our original decision.

His petition for rehearing seeks correction of administrative agency action,

without having brought or properly perfected such an appeal from agency

action in this case. See, e.g., Dennis v. Bd. of Pub. Safety, 944 N.E.2d 54, 60 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2011) (observing “the basic principle of Indiana administrative law

that a claimant who has an available administrative remedy must exhaust the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Decision on Rehearing 39A04-1402-MI-88 | January 29, 2015 Page 2 of 3 administrative remedy before seeking judicial review”). Absent such a properly

perfected appeal, we lack authority to resolve the issues in Cox’s motion for

correction and petition for rehearing.

[5] Having found no basis upon which to grant relief under Cox’s petition, we deny

his motion for correction and reaffirm in all respects our prior decision in this

matter.

Najam, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Decision on Rehearing 39A04-1402-MI-88 | January 29, 2015 Page 3 of 3