Timothy E. Strowmatt v. Keith Butts and Mike Smith (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                 FILED
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                         Feb 21 2017, 9:36 am
    court except for the purpose of establishing                          CLERK
    the defense of res judicata, collateral                           Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    estoppel, or the law of the case.                                      and Tax Court
    APPELLANT PRO SE                                         ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
    Timothy E. Strowmatt                                     Adam G. Forrest
    New Castle, Indiana                                      Boston Bever Klinge Cross &
    Chidester
    Richmond, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Timothy E. Strowmatt,                                    February 21, 2017
    Appellant-Plaintiff,                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
    33A05-1606-SC-1485
    v.                                               Appeal from the Henry Circuit
    Court
    Keith Butts and                                          The Honorable Bob A. Witham,
    Mike Smith,                                              Judge
    Appellees-Respondents                                    Trial Court Cause No.
    33C03-1512-SC-1453
    Baker, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1606-SC-1485 | February 21, 2017   Page 1 of 3
    [1]   Timothy Strowmatt appeals the trial court’s order denying his small claims
    against Keith Butts and Mike Smith, both of whom are employees of the
    Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). Strowmatt argues that there is
    insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s order and that he was denied
    due process of law because he requested a copy of the Small Claims Manual
    from the trial court but allegedly never received one. Finding sufficient
    evidence and that Strowmatt has waived the due process claim, we affirm.
    [2]   Strowmatt is an inmate in the DOC. On January 8, 2016, Strowmatt filed a
    notice of small claims, arguing that the New Castle Correctional Facility failed
    to deposit the full required amount into Strowmatt’s reentry account.
    Specifically, Strowmatt contends that he is owed $89.14.
    [3]   Indiana Code section 11-10-6-3(d) states that if an offender is eligible for a
    reentry account, between ten and twenty percent of that inmate’s gross earnings
    shall be deposited into that account. Strowmatt argues, correctly, that less than
    the required amount has been deposited into his reentry account.
    [4]   Indiana Code section 11-10-15-1, however, states that reentry accounts are
    subject to “all other department rules” regarding those accounts. Relevant to
    this case is DOC Policy and Procedure Number 04-01-104, which states that
    “15% of the offender’s earnings, after all required deductions have been made, from
    the work assignment” will be deposited into the offender’s reentry account.
    Appellant’s App. p. 77 (emphasis added).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1606-SC-1485 | February 21, 2017   Page 2 of 3
    [5]   In this case, there is a federal court order in place against Strowmatt requiring
    that 80% of his state pay be applied to his federal court filing fee arrearage. He
    also owes additional sums of money related to copies and postage. As such,
    after all of the required deductions were made, less than fifteen percent of his
    gross earnings were available to be deposited into his reentry account. Given
    that the statutes regarding reentry accounts are subject to DOC rules, and that a
    DOC rule plainly requires that all required deductions be made before any
    deposits are made to reentry accounts, there is sufficient evidence supporting
    the trial court’s denial of Strowmatt’s small claims.
    [6]   Strowmatt also argues that he requested the Small Claims Manual from the trial
    court but did not receive it; he contends that his due process rights were
    violated as a result. He did not raise this argument to the trial court.
    Consequently, he has waived it and we will not address it. E.g., JK Harris & Co.,
    LLC v. Sandlin, 
    942 N.E.2d 875
    , 882 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (observing that
    constitutional issues, such as lack of due process, are waived if the issue is
    raised for the first time on appeal); Miller v. Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 
    878 N.E.2d 346
    , 353 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (same).
    [7]   The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1606-SC-1485 | February 21, 2017   Page 3 of 3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 33A05-1606-SC-1485

Filed Date: 2/21/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/21/2017