Sean M. Adair v. Tiffany Martin (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Dec 12 2018, 9:21 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
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
Sean M. Adair
New Albany, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Sean M. Adair, December 12, 2018
Appellant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-JP-1674
v. Appeal from the Floyd Circuit
Court
Tiffany Martin, The Honorable J. Terrence Cody,
Appellee. Judge
The Honorable Julie Fessel
Flanigan, Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
22C01-1805-JP-33
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-1674 | December 12, 2018 Page 1 of 5
[1] Sean M. Adair, pro se, appeals the dismissal of his petition to establish paternity.
We dismiss.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On May 4, 2017, Adair filed a Verified Petition to Establish Paternity, Custody,
Child Support, and Parenting Time with respect to A.L.J. (the “Child”) in the
Clark Circuit Court under cause number 10C04-1705-JP-83. In August 2017,
the Clark Circuit Court entered an order finding that Adair’s petition was not
timely filed and dismissed the petition.1
[3] On May 18, 2018, Adair filed a Petition for Paternity alleging that he was the
father of the Child in the Floyd Circuit Court under cause number 22C01-1805-
JP-33. The court scheduled a hearing for July 20, 2018. On June 20, 2018, the
trial court entered an order which states:
The Court takes judicial notice of the August 17, 2017 Order of
Clark Circuit Count No. 4 in 10C04-1705-JP-83 dismissing that
juvenile paternity matter involving the identical parties and issues
presented in this case. This matter is hereby dismissed with
prejudice and the hearing set for July 20, 2018 at 11:00 am is
hereby vacated because this matter has been fully litigated and
dismissed in 10C04-1705-JP-83.
June 20, 2018 Order.2
1
Adair did not appeal from the August 2017 order.
2
Adair filed a notice of appeal on July 2, 2018, and a brief on September 1, 2018. Tiffany Martin submitted
a brief, which was stamped as postmarked on October 15, 2018. That same day, the Clerk entered a Notice
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-1674 | December 12, 2018 Page 2 of 5
Discussion
[4] We observe that Adair is proceeding pro se. A pro se litigant is held to the same
established rules of procedure that trained legal counsel are bound to follow,
and the fact that a litigant proceeds pro se does not excuse the litigant from
complying with appellate rules. Foster v. Adoption of Federspiel, 560 N.E.2d 691,
692 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). Although we prefer to dispose of cases on their
merits, where an appellant fails to substantially comply with the appellate rules,
then dismissal of the appeal is warranted. Hughes v. King, 808 N.E.2d 146, 147
(Ind. Ct. App. 2004). This Court has discretion to dismiss an appeal for the
appellant’s failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Miller
v. Hague Ins. Agency, Inc., 871 N.E.2d 406, 407 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (“Although
we will exercise our discretion to reach the merits when violations are
comparatively minor, if the parties commit flagrant violations of the Rules of
Appellate Procedure we will hold issues waived, or dismiss the appeal.”), reh’g
denied. Moreover, 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)
(internal quotation marks omitted), reh’g denied.
[5] Adair has failed to comply with the requirements of the Appellate Rules.
Appellate Rule 46(A)(5) governs the statement of case and provides that “[p]age
of Defect indicating that Martin must submit a new corrected brief with a motion to file a belated brief, which
she has not done.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-1674 | December 12, 2018 Page 3 of 5
references to the Record on Appeal or Appendix are required in accordance
with Rule 22(C).” Appellate Rule 46(A)(6) governs the statement of facts and
provides that “[t]he facts shall be supported by page references to the Record on
Appeal or Appendix in accordance with Rule 22(C).” Appellate Rule 46(8)
governs the argument and provides that “[t]he argument must contain the
contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent
reasoning” and “[e]ach contention must be supported by citations to the
authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied
on, in accordance with Rule 22.” Appellate Rule 22(C) governs references to
the record on appeal and provides that “[a]ny factual statement shall be
supported by a citation to the volume and page where it appears in an
Appendix, and if not contained in an Appendix, to the volume and page it
appears in the Transcript or exhibits, e.g., Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 5; Tr. Vol.
I, pp. 231-32.” Adair does not include any citation to the record in his
statement of case, statement of facts, or argument. We also note that Adair did
not file an appendix.3 See Ind. Appellate Rules 49, 50.
[6] Adair has failed to advance his arguments with cogent reasoning or citations to
relevant authority and the record. We find that addressing his claims on the
merits would require us to make and advance arguments for him.
Accordingly, we find that dismissal of this appeal is warranted. See Keller v.
3
Adair submitted a 151-page document without a table of contents which states “This is the evidence that I
have,” and was stamped as postmarked on July 27, 2018. The Clerk sent Adair a letter indicating that the
document had not been filed because it was procedurally improper.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-1674 | December 12, 2018 Page 4 of 5
State, 549 N.E.2d 372, 374 (Ind. 1990) (dismissing the appeal because of the
appellant’s failure to provide cogent argument with adequate citation of
authority); Basic, 58 N.E.3d 980 at 982 (concluding that, because they violated
numerous provisions of Appellate Rule 46 including the failure to present
cogent argument, the appellants waived all issues for appeal).
Conclusion
[7] For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Adair’s appeal.
[8] Dismissed.
Bailey, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-1674 | December 12, 2018 Page 5 of 5