Kevin Martin v. Richard Brown (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 15 2019, 11:09 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kevin Martin Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility Attorney General
Carlisle, Indiana
Natalie F. Weiss
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kevin Martin, March 15, 2019
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CT-2940
v. Appeal from the Sullivan Superior
Court
Richard Brown, et. al., The Honorable Hugh R. Hunt,
Appellees-Defendants Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
77D01-1807-CT-361
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-2940 | March 15, 2019 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Kevin Martin, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
(“WVCF”), appeals the trial court’s order entering judgment on the pleadings
and dismissing with prejudice his complaint filed against Richard Brown,
Charles Dugan, Michelle Martin, and Jerricha Meeks (collectively “the
Defendants”).1 He makes various assertions of trial court error. Concluding
that he has waived our review of these alleged errors, we affirm.
Discussion and Decision
[2] We begin by noting that Martin proceeds pro se. A litigant who proceeds pro se
is held to the same rules of procedure that trained counsel is bound to follow
Smith v. Donahue, 907 N.E.2d 553, 555 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied, cert.
dismissed. Pro se litigants are afforded no inherent leniency simply by virtue of
being self-represented. Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 266 (Ind. 2014). One
risk a litigant takes when he proceeds pro se is that he will not know how to
accomplish all the things an attorney would know how to accomplish. Smith,
907 N.E.2d at 555. When a party elects to represent himself, there is no reason
for us to indulge in any benevolent presumption on his behalf or to waive any
rule for the orderly and proper conduct of the appeal. Foley v. Mannor, 844
N.E.2d 494, 496 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
1
From what we can gather, it appears that each of the Defendants is or was an employee or official of
WVCF. Martin’s complaint appears to allege a tort claim against the Defendants as well as claims for
violations of his civil rights.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-2940 | March 15, 2019 Page 2 of 4
[3] Although failure to comply with the appellate rules does not necessarily result
in waiver of the issues presented, it is appropriate where, as here, such
noncompliance substantially impedes our review. In re Moeder, 27 N.E.3d 1089,
1097 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. First, Indiana Appellate Rule 43(C)
states that an appellate brief “shall be produced in a neat and legible manner[.]”
Much of the handwritten text in Martin’s fourteen-page appellate brief and his
ninety-seven-page appendix is virtually illegible. Consequently, there are
countless words and sentences that we are unable to decipher or understand.
[4] Additionally, Martin’s appellate brief contains no statement of case or
statement of facts as required by Indiana Appellate Rules 46(A)(5) and -(A)(6).
Accordingly, we have been provided no explanation of “the nature of the case,
the course of proceedings relevant to the issues presented for review, and the
disposition of these issues by the trial court[,]” and we have been provided no
“facts relevant to the issues presented for review.” Ind. Appellate Rules
46(A)(5), -(A)(6). Moreover, Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8) requires that
contentions in an appellant’s brief be supported by cogent reasoning and
citations to authorities, statutes, and the appendix or parts of the record on
appeal. Martin’s brief is replete with bald statements and assertions
unsupported by cogent argument. The mere citation to legal authority in
support of an argument is insufficient if it is not also supported by cogent
reasoning.
[5] We will not search the record to find a basis for a party’s argument, nor will we
search the authorities cited by a party in order to find legal support for his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-2940 | March 15, 2019 Page 3 of 4
position. Thomas v. State, 965 N.E.2d 70, 77 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). In short,
this Court will “not become an advocate for a party, or address arguments that
are inappropriate or too poorly developed or expressed to be understood.” Basic
v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 984 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Failure to abide by our
appellate rules of procedure has resulted in waiver of Martin’s claims on appeal.
See, e.g., Wingate v. State, 900 N.E.2d 468, 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). We affirm
the trial court in all respects.
[6] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-2940 | March 15, 2019 Page 4 of 4