Gersh Zavodnik v. Irene Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259

Plaintiff Gersh Zavodnik is a prolific pro se litigant with over 100 cases filed since 2008 and numerous filings in appellate courts; the trial court found his filings voluminous, repetitive, often defective, and meritless.
Zavodnik filed this civil action in Marion County on August 20, 2010; after many procedural maneuvers (multiple change-of-judge requests, attempts to disqualify opposing counsel), the trial court dismissed the case on April 4, 2013 under T.R. 41(E) for failure to prosecute and comply with rules.
The trial court denied Zavodnik’s motion to correct error and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); Zavodnik appealed and sought IFP in the Court of Appeals, which denied IFP and set a briefing schedule.
Zavodnik failed to file an appellant’s brief and appendix by the Court of Appeals’ deadline and did not pay the filing fee; the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal with prejudice for failure to file a timely brief and appendix.
Zavodnik petitioned this Court for transfer; the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer, found many of Zavodnik’s procedural claims moot or waived, declined to impose sanctions at that time, and provided guidance on imposing restrictions and sanctions against abusive litigants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of IFP	Zavodnik argued he was entitled to proceed IFP on appeal.	Appellee and courts argued denial was proper given procedural defaults and record.	Moot as ground for dismissal was failure to file brief; trial court’s IFP denial not dispositive.
Correction/Completion of record	Zavodnik sought court or clerk to “correct, fix and complete” the record.	Appellee argued procedural rules require raising such issues first in trial court.	Waived — Zavodnik failed to present the request to trial court as Appellate Rules require.
Alleged discrimination / biased treatment	Zavodnik claimed repeated discriminatory treatment by courts.	Appellee maintained rulings were procedural and lawful.	Waived — Zavodnik did not provide cogent argument or authority; claim rejected.
Dismissal for failure to prosecute / appellate dismissal for failure to brief	Zavodnik implied dismissal was improper or unjust.	Courts showed extensive delay, abusive filings, and failure to comply with briefing rules.	Dismissals upheld; appeal dismissed for not filing brief/appendix timely; transfer denied.

Sumbry v. Boklund, 836 N.E.2d 430 (Ind. 2005) (abusive litigation diverts judicial resources and may be restricted)
Sims v. Scopelitis, 797 N.E.2d 348 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (example of pre-filing screening conditions for repeat frivolous filers)
Huber v. Franklin Cnty. Cmty. Sch. Corp. Bd. of Trustees, 507 N.E.2d 233 (Ind. 1987) (injunctions may bar filing further suits when litigation constitutes abuse of process)
Gorman v. Gorman, 871 N.E.2d 1019 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (court may require appeal bond, dismiss frivolous appeals, and enjoin future filings without leave)
Matter of McDonald, 489 U.S. 180 (U.S. 1989) (federal precedent limiting IFP privileges for abusive petitioners)
Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir. 1986) (sources for suggested restrictions on repetitive or voluminous filings)
Garland v. State, 788 N.E.2d 425 (Ind. 2003) (disqualification requires showing of personal bias; adverse rulings alone insufficient)