Kevin Martin v. Lauren A. Kawecki, Jeffrey L. Sanford, and Terri J. Rethlake (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 14 2019, 9:14 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:
Kevin Martin LAUREN A. KAWECKI AND
Carlisle, Indiana JEFFERY L. SANFORD
Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Attorney General of Indiana
Katherine A. Cornelius
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kevin Martin, August 14, 2019
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CT-1454
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Circuit
Court
Lauren A. Kawecki, Jeffrey L. The Honorable John Broden,
Sanford, and Terri J. Rethlake, Judge
Appellee-Defendants. Trial Court Cause No.
71C01-1711-CT-508
Tavitas, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-1454 | August 14, 2019 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Kevin Martin appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing Martin’s complaint
against deputy prosecutor Lauren Kawecki and Judge Jeffery Sanford (“Judge
Sanford”) (collectively, “Defendants”). 1 We affirm.
Issue
[2] Martin raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court erred in
dismissing Martin’s complaint.
Facts
[3] On February 16, 2007, a jury convicted Martin of murder, and Martin was
sentenced to sixty-five years executed. After Martin’s trial, he initiated several
filings, including a petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”). Kawecki
represented the State at the PCR proceedings, and Judge Sanford presided over
the PCR proceedings.
[4] On October 16, 2017, Martin, pro se, filed a complaint alleging that Defendants
violated Martin’s Sixth Amendment rights for “negligence” in failing to allow
Martin to present a defense and call witnesses on his own behalf. Appellee’s
App. Vol. II p. 4. Martin initially filed his complaint in the Sullivan Circuit
Court; however, the case was later venued in St. Joseph County.
1
Martin’s complaint also appears to include Terri J. Rethlake as a defendant. Martin’s brief does not appear
to appeal the claims as to Rethlake specifically, and the notice of appeal does not include Rethlake’s name.
Accordingly, we focus only on Kawecki and Judge Sanford in this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-1454 | August 14, 2019 Page 2 of 4
[5] On December 20, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Indiana
Trial Rule 12(B)(6) arguing that Martin’s suit fails for three reasons: (1)
Kawecki is shielded by prosecutorial immunity; (2) Judge Sanford is shielded
by judicial immunity; and (3) Martin is not entitled to relief because his
conviction for murder still stands. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion
to dismiss. Martin now appeals.
Analysis
[6] Martin argues that it was error for the trial court to dismiss his complaint
against Defendants under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6). Martin’s arguments in
his brief are difficult to understand or ascertain. Martin made several
arguments in his initial complaint; however, he does not appear to assert all the
same arguments on appeal. Finally, Martin’s request for relief includes a
request that he receive a new post-conviction relief hearing and that we order
the trial court to allow him to introduce the evidence he sought to initially
admit at his murder trial. We address only the arguments that we can readily
ascertain from Martin’s brief. To the extent that Martin has argued more issues
than we address in our opinion, those arguments are waived for failure to make
a cogent argument. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46 (“The argument must contain
the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent
reasoning.”).
[7] “Since a 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim challenges only
the legal sufficiency of the complaint, it presents a legal question that we review
de novo.” Ward v. Carter, 90 N.E.3d 660, 662 (Ind. 2018) (citing Thornton v.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-1454 | August 14, 2019 Page 3 of 4
State, 43 N.E.3d 585, 587 (Ind. 2015)). “We may affirm a dismissal under
12(B)(6) ‘if it is sustainable on any basis in the record.’” Ward, 90 N.E.3d at
662 (quoting Thornton, 43 N.E.3d at 587).
[8] Here, the trial court properly dismissed Martin’s complaint. All the claims
Martin alleges against Defendants stem from conduct that Defendants
completed in the course of their roles as deputy prosecutor and judge.
Accordingly, both Defendants are immune from civil suits based on these
actions. See Freeman v. Thompson, 124 N.E.3d 74, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (“We
have long recognized that judicial immunity is granted even when judges act
maliciously or corruptly.”) (quotations omitted); see also Sims v. Beamer, 757
N.E.2d 1021, 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (“Generally, judges are entitled to
absolute immunity from suits or money damages for all actions taken in the
judge’s judicial capacity; only where a judge’s actions are taken in the complete
absence of any jurisdiction will judicial immunity not apply.”); see also Foster v.
Pearcy, 387 N.E.2d 446, 538 (Ind. 1979) (“[W]here, as here, the acts are
reasonably within the general scope of authority granted to prosecuting
attorneys, no liability will attach.”). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in
dismissing Martin’s complaint against Defendants.
Conclusion
[9] The trial court did not err in dismissing Martin’s complaint. We affirm.
[10] Affirmed.
Crone, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-1454 | August 14, 2019 Page 4 of 4