130 N.E.3d 135
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- Kevin Martin, pro se, sued Judge Hugh Hunt (in his personal capacity), Sullivan Circuit Court Clerk Peggy Goodman, and DOC employees Brenda Hinton and Charles Dugan asserting due-process violations arising from a dispute with a DOC librarian and seeking release from prison.
- Martin filed an amended complaint after defendants moved to dismiss; defendants argued judicial immunity, lack of jurisdiction to grant release, parallel pending proceedings, and public-policy grounds (serial litigation).
- The trial court dismissed the amended complaint, finding it lacked jurisdiction to order release, Judge Hunt was immune, the matter was before the Indiana Supreme Court on transfer, and Martin’s serial litigation made the action contrary to public policy.
- On appeal Martin proceeded pro se; the Court of Appeals noted multiple, repeated procedural defects in Martin’s filings and prior dismissals of similar suits.
- The appellate brief omitted required Statement of the Case and Statement of Facts and failed to present cogent arguments, cite authority, or record pages, substantially impeding appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to grant release from prison | Martin sought release as remedy for alleged due-process violations | Defendants: trial court lacked jurisdiction to order release | Court: trial court properly found it lacked jurisdiction to grant release |
| Judicial immunity of Judge Hunt | Martin challenged actions of Judge Hunt in his personal capacity | Defendants: Judge Hunt enjoys judicial immunity for the alleged actions | Court: Judge Hunt immune; claims against him dismissed |
| Procedural sufficiency of appellate brief | Martin asserted errors by trial court/defendants (unclear) | Defendants: Martin’s appellate brief fails to comply with Appellate Rule 46 and lacks cogent argument | Court: Martin’s multiple Rule 46 violations waive the issues; appeal affirmed |
| Serial/Frivolous litigation and public policy | Martin maintained his claims are meritorious | Defendants: Martin engaged in serial, frivolous litigation; public policy disfavors suit | Court: trial court permissibly dismissed as contrary to public policy and noted statutory restrictions on repeat filings |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (pro se litigants held to same procedural standards as attorneys)
- Hollowell v. State, 707 N.E.2d 1014 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (failure to present cogent argument results in waiver)
- In re Moeder, 27 N.E.3d 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (waiver appropriate when procedural violations substantially impede appellate review)