Christopher E. Washington v. Mark E. Sevier (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 Oct 18 2019, 8:33 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Christopher E. Washington Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Huntington, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Frances Barrow
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Matthew J. Goldsmith
Certified Legal Intern
Michael V. Sherman
Certified Legal Intern
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Christopher E. Washington, October 18, 2019
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-PL-549
v. Appeal from the La Porte Superior
Court
Mark E. Sevier, The Honorable Jeffrey L. Thorne,
Appellee-Respondent Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
46D03-1806-PL-813
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-549 | Ocotber 18, 2019 Page 1 of 4
May, Judge.
[1] Christopher E. Washington appeals the denial of his motion to file an amended
complaint and the grant of the State’s motion to dismiss his complaint against
Mark E. Sevier. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On June 11, 2018, Washington, who resides at Westville Correctional Facility,
filed a complaint against Sevier, who is the warden of the Westville
Correctional Facility. Washington alleged neglect stemming from two separate
occurrences: one when Washington fell in the shower and cut his hand; and
the other when Washington fell from his wheelchair and was injured.
Washington’s complaint requested the court award him seven million dollars in
damages.
[3] On September 10, 2018, the State filed a motion to dismiss Washington’s
action, alleging Washington’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. On September 19, 2018, Washington filed a motion to
amend his complaint and attached his amended complaint. The trial court
denied Washington’s motion to amend on the same day.
[4] On September 20, 2018, Washington filed his response to the State’s motion to
dismiss. The trial court granted Washington additional time to respond to the
State’s motion to dismiss on December 26, 2018, and on January 7, 2019,
Washington filed another response to the State’s motion to dismiss. On
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-549 | Ocotber 18, 2019 Page 2 of 4
February 6, 2019, the State filed its reply to Washington’s response. On
February 13, 2019, the trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss
Washington’s complaint.
Discussion and Decision
[5] On appeal, Washington contends that the trial court erred when it dismissed his
complaint. At the onset, we note Washington appeared before the trial court
and in this appeal as a pro se litigant. It is well settled that pro se litigants are
held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and thus they are required to
follow procedural rules. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind. Ct. App.
2004), trans. denied. 1
[6] Washington seems to contend the LaPorte Superior Court judge was biased and
prejudiced against him. Specifically, Washington maintains that the judge was
biased against him because the judge did not allow him to amend his complaint
but, rather, dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. We presume a
judge is unbiased. In re Guardianship of Hickman, 805 N.E.2d 808, 814 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2004), trans. denied. “In order to overcome that presumption, the
appellant must demonstrate actual personal bias.” Id. “Merely asserting bias
1
We also note that Washington’s brief wholly fails to comply with Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a).
Washington fails to set out his contentions supported by cogent reasoning, he does not provide a single
citation to the record, and he does not cite any relevant case law. Accordingly, Washington has waived his
purported issues on appeal. Waiver notwithstanding, we attempt to address the merits of his argument.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-549 | Ocotber 18, 2019 Page 3 of 4
and prejudice does not make it so.” Smith v. State, 770 N.E.2d 818, 823 (Ind.
2002).
[7] However, Washington has not cited any evidence or case law to support his
argument the trial court erred when it did not allow him to amend his
complaint. Nor does Washington cite any evidence or case law to demonstrate
the trial court’s grant of the State’s motion to dismiss demonstrated bias or
prejudice against him. Thus, his claim fails. See Wright v. Elston, 701 N.E.2d
1227, 1232 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (to prevail on a claim of judicial bias or
prejudice, there must be a showing on the record that discloses actions alleged
to demonstrate bias or prejudice), trans. denied.
Conclusion
[8] Washington has not demonstrated the trial court judge was biased or prejudiced
against him, and thus does not prevail in his challenge to the trial court’s orders
to deny his motion to amend his complaint and to grant the State’s motion to
dismiss Washington’s complain. Accordingly, we affirm.
[9] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-549 | Ocotber 18, 2019 Page 4 of 4