Holleman v. Indiana Department of Correction
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 109
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Holleman submitted a public records request to the Indiana Department of Correction on January 9, 2014; the Department did not timely acknowledge or respond.
- Holleman filed a complaint with the Indiana Public Access Counselor; the Counselor issued an advisory opinion finding the Department violated the Access to Public Records Act by failing to acknowledge the request.
- Holleman sued the Department and two officials (Lemmon and Bugher in their official capacities) seeking civil penalties ($100 each) and reimbursement of court costs.
- After suit was filed, the Department produced documents responsive to Holleman’s request and moved to dismiss the case as moot.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice; on appeal the Department conceded that claims for penalties and costs were not mooted by production and that remand was necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for mootness was proper | Holleman argued the case was not moot because he sought civil penalties and court costs | Department argued the case was moot because it produced the requested records | Affirmed in part: dismissal proper as to sufficiency of production (waived); reversed in part: remand for penalties and costs claims |
| Whether Holleman may recover civil penalties | Holleman contends penalties are available for the Department’s failure to timely respond | Department conceded penalties claim was not mooted by document production | Remanded for trial court fact-finding on penalties (statutory elements require fact-finding) |
| Whether Holleman may recover court costs | Holleman seeks reimbursement of filing costs after prevailing | Department conceded costs claim was not mooted by production | Remanded for trial court to determine whether Holleman substantially prevailed and is entitled to costs |
| Whether appellate court should decide merits of penalties/costs | Holleman asked this Court to decide entitlement now | Department and court said statutes require factual findings by trial court | Rejected: trial court must decide factual issues related to penalties and costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Medley v. Lemmon, 994 N.E.2d 1177 (Ind. Ct. App.) (standard of review for motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim)
- Greer v. Buss, 918 N.E.2d 607 (Ind. Ct. App.) (complaint reviewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Bowden v. Agnew, 2 N.E.3d 743 (Ind. Ct. App.) (issues raised first on appeal are waived)