In the Commitment of S.C. (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 31 2017, 9:02 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
S.C.
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Commitment of S.C. January 31, 2017
Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1608-MH-1802
Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
The Honorable Steven R.
Eichholtz, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49D08-1606-MH-23181
Pyle, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] S.C., pro se, appeals her involuntary temporary commitment. However, due to
her lack of cogent argument and appellate rule violations, we conclude that she
has waived her claim on appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1608-MH-1802 | January 31, 2017 Page 1 of 5
[2] We dismiss.
Issue
Whether S.C. has waived appellate review of her argument.
Facts1
[3] On June 28, 2016, Eskenazi Hospital filed an application for emergency
detention of S.C. The trial court held a hearing on the application and ordered
that S.C. be involuntarily committed to Eskenazi Hospital on a temporary basis
until October 5, 2016. Subsequently, S.C., pro se, filed a motion to belatedly
appeal her commitment, and this Court granted the motion. In our order
granting the motion, we ordered S.C. to file an amended notice of appeal that
included instructions for the Court Reporter as to which hearings S.C. wished
to have transcribed. S.C. filed an amended notice of appeal but did not specify
a hearing she wished to have transcribed.
[4] Thereafter, S.C. filed an Appellant’s Brief arguing that she was not mentally ill
and that the police reports that were the basis for her commitment were false.
As a result, S.C. asserted that she should be released from her commitment.
However, S.C. did not file an Appellant’s Appendix or a copy of the trial
court’s commitment order. In addition, her brief lacked headings, citations to
1
The only facts we have concerning S.C.’s commitment proceeding are those we have gleaned from the
chronological case summary that was attached to the Clerk’s “Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1608-MH-1802 | January 31, 2017 Page 2 of 5
the record, and citations to legal authority. Eskenazi Hospital did not file an
Appellee’s Brief.
Decision
[5] On appeal, S.C. argues that she should be released from her involuntary
commitment because she is not mentally ill and because the police reports that
were the basis for her commitment were false. However, S.C.’s lack of cogent
argument and numerous appellate rule violations hinder us from reviewing her
claim.2
[6] Preliminarily, we must note that we have previously explained that:
one who proceeds pro se is held to the same established rules of
procedure that a trained legal counsel is bound to follow and,
therefore, must be prepared to accept the consequences of his or
her action. While we prefer to decide cases on the merits, we will
deem alleged errors waived where an appellant’s noncompliance with the
rules of appellate procedure is so substantial it impedes our appellate
consideration of the errors. The purpose of our appellate rules, Ind.
Appellate Rule 46 in particular, is to aid and expedite review and
to relieve the appellate court of the burden of searching the
record and briefing the case. We will not become an advocate for
a party, nor will we address arguments which are either
inappropriate, too poorly developed or improperly expressed to
be understood.
2
Furthermore, based on the chronological case summary, it would appear that S.C.’s temporary
commitment has expired, rendering any alleged error moot. See Commitment of J.B., 766 N.E.2d 795, 798
(Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (“When a court is unable to render effective relief to a party, the case is deemed moot
and usually dismissed.”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1608-MH-1802 | January 31, 2017 Page 3 of 5
In re Garrard, 985 N.E.2d 1097, 1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Ramsey v.
Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 789 N.E.2d 486, 487 (Ind. Ct. App.
2003) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted)) (emphasis in original),
reh’g denied, trans. denied.
[7] In this case, S.C. claims that she should be released from her commitment
because the reports that were the basis for her commitment were false.
However, she does not provide any citations to the record or to legal authority
to support her argument. Because a party waives an issue where the party fails
to develop a cogent argument or provide adequate citation to the record or legal
authority on appeal, we conclude that S.C. has waived her claim. See id.[8] Moreover, S.C. has not provided this Court with a sufficient record to review
her claim. S.C. did not file an Appellant’s Appendix including, as required
under Appellate Rule 50(A)(2), the chronological case summary, the appealed
judgment or order, or “pleadings and other documents from the Clerk’s Record
in chronological order that are necessary for resolution of the issues raised on
appeal.” App. R. 50(A)(2). In addition, she failed to specify which hearing she
wished the court clerk to transcribe, so there is no transcript. Without these
documents, we are unable to determine even the basis for the trial court’s order
committing S.C. We certainly cannot evaluate whether that decision was error.
The only facts we have concerning S.C.’s commitment proceeding are those we
have gleaned from the chronological case summary that was attached to the
Clerk’s “Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1608-MH-1802 | January 31, 2017 Page 4 of 5
[9] We recognize that a mental health commitment is a restriction on an
individual’s liberty that is little different than jail, and we consider it as a
challenge to the personal liberty we all hold dear. See Jackson v. Ind. Adult
Protective Services, 52 N.E.3d 821, 824 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Civil
Commitment of W.S. v. Eskenazi Health, Midtown Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., 23
N.E.3d 29, 33 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied). However, in order to fairly
and effectively consider a challenge to a mental health commitment, we must
receive a record that is much more than just a challenge to the credibility of
witnesses, a challenge that the trial courts are entitled to resolve on the evidence
with which they are presented. See id. (stating that “we will not reweigh the
evidence or assess witness credibility”). The Court of Appeals cannot and will
not serve as a restrained individual’s appellate counsel. See Garrard, 985 N.E.2d
at 1103. Accordingly, we dismiss S.C.’s claim. See Ramsey, 789 N.E.2d 486(holding that the appellant’s substantial noncompliance with the rules of
appellate procedure resulted in waiver of his claims on appeal).
[10] Dismissed.
Baker, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1608-MH-1802 | January 31, 2017 Page 5 of 5