David Pannell v. Bessie E. Leonard (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 03 2020, 8:20 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
David Pannell Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Greencastle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Natalie F. Weiss
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
David Pannell, March 3, 2020
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-PL-938
v. Appeal from the LaPorte Superior
Court
Bessie E. Leonard, The Honorable Richard R.
Appellee-Defendant. Stalbrink, Jr., Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
46D02-1801-PL-111
Darden, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-938 | March 3, 2020 Page 1 of 7
Statement of the Case
[1] David Pannell appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for relief from
judgment. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Pannell raises one issue, which we restate as: whether the trial court erred in
denying his motion.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] This case began on January 24, 2018, when Pannell filed a civil complaint
against Bessie E. Leonard. Pannell, who was incarcerated at a correctional
facility, claimed that Leonard, an employee of the facility’s law library, had
unfairly deprived him of access to the library. Pannell further alleged that the
deprivation of access resulted in the dismissal of his then-pending appeal in
another case, thereby violating his right to due process of law under the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
[4] On February 6, 2018, Pannell amended his civil complaint but did not add any
other claims. On March 5, 2018, Leonard filed a notice of removal, informing
the trial court that she would ask the federal district court to adjudicate
Pannell’s federal constitutional claim. Leonard also filed a notice of removal
with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
(“district court”), under Case Number 3:18-cv-164.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-938 | March 3, 2020 Page 2 of 7
[5] On March 6, 2018, the federal district court issued an order dismissing
Pannell’s federal claim, with prejudice. The federal judge determined Pannell
could not litigate in the district court because “he is a restricted filer.”
Appellant’s App. Vol II, p. 18. However, the federal district court further noted
Pannell was not precluded from litigating state-law claims in Indiana’s state
courts. Accordingly, the federal district court remanded “the remaining State
claims” to the trial court. Id.
[6] On April 6, 2018, Leonard filed in the state trial court a motion to dismiss
Pannell’s civil complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Leonard argued that Pannell had not alleged any state claims in his
complaint, and as a result there was nothing left for the trial court to adjudicate.
On April 20, the trial court granted Leonard’s motion, without prejudice.
[7] On May 16, 2018, Pannell filed with the trial court an amended civil complaint.
He presented the same Fourteenth Amendment U.S. Constitutional claim he
had raised in his prior versions of the complaint, specifically alleging that
Leonard had unfairly deprived him of access to the courts. On May 30, 2018,
Leonard moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On June 7,
2018, the trial court granted Leonard’s motion and dismissed the complaint,
with prejudice.
[8] Pannell appealed the dismissal order. A panel of this Court affirmed the trial
court’s judgment, concluding in part that the Court would not review the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-938 | March 3, 2020 Page 3 of 7
federal district court’s dismissal of his complaint. Pannell v. Leonard, Case No.
18A-PL-1684 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2019) (“Pannell I”).
[9] On April 11, 2019, Pannell filed with the trial court a “Motion for Relief of
Void Judgment Pursuant to Ind. TR 60(B)(4).” Appellant’s App. p. 41. He
argued that the federal district court’s dismissal order was void and that the trial
court should have adjudicated his constitutional claim. On April 15, 2019, the
trial court denied Pannell’s motion. This appeal followed.
Discussion and Decision
[10] Pannell argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion
for relief from judgment and should have adjudicated his Fourteenth
Amendment federal claim. In general, we review a ruling on a Trial Rule 60(B)
motion for relief from judgment under an abuse of discretion standard.
Breneman v. Slusher, 768 N.E.2d 451, 461 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.
However, where, as here, a litigant in essence claims a trial court order is void
1
under Trial Rule 60(B)(6), our review is de novo “because either the judgment
is void or it is valid,” and there is “no discretion on the part of the trial court.”
1
Pannell cited Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(4) in the title of his motion for relief from judgment, but that
subsection governs “entry of default or judgment by default” against a party “without actual knowledge.” By
contrast, Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(6) governs void judgments. Pannell may have confused Indiana Trial
Rule 60(B)(4) with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(B)(4), which also governs void judgments. In any
event, focusing on the substance of Pannell’s arguments, we will address his challenge as if he had cited
Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(6).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-938 | March 3, 2020 Page 4 of 7
Hotmix & Bituminous Equipment, Inc. v. Hardrock Equipment Corp., 719 N.E.2d
824, 826 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
[11] Before we turn to the merits of Pannell’s claim, Leonard argues that the claim is
barred by the law of the case doctrine. That doctrine provides that an appellate
court’s determination of a legal issue binds both the trial court and the appellate
court in any subsequent appeal involving the same case and substantially the
same facts. Terex-Telelect, Inc. v. Wade, 59 N.E.3d 298, 303 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016),
trans. denied. The purpose of the doctrine is to minimize unnecessary repeated
litigation of legal issues once they have been resolved by an appellate court. Id.
“Accordingly, the law of the case doctrine bars relitigation of all issues decided
‘directly or by implication in a prior decision.’” Id. (quoting Luhnow v. Horn,
760 N.E.2d 621, 625 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)).
[12] The law of the case doctrine is a “discretionary rule of practice.” Certain Ne.
Annexation Area Landowners v. City of Fort Wayne, 622 N.E.2d 548, 549 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1993), trans. denied. A court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its
own or of a coordinate court in any circumstance, although as a rule courts
should be loath to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. Id.
[13] In his motion for relief from judgment, Pannell argued the federal district
court’s order dismissing his Fourteenth Amendment claim was void because
that court failed to properly apply the precedent that governed him as a
restricted filer. Pannell had challenged the validity of the federal district court’s
ruling in Pannell I, and a panel of this Court rejected his same arguments. He
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-938 | March 3, 2020 Page 5 of 7
may not attempt to relitigate the issue now. See Certain Ne. Annexation Area
Landowners, 622 N.E.2d at 550-51 (challenge to validity of certain signatures on
a petition was barred by law of the case; the validity of the signatures as a whole
had been raised and addressed in a prior appeal).
[14] Even if the law of the case doctrine did not bar Pannell’s claim that the federal
district court’s judgment is void, the claim is nonetheless without merit. “A
void judgment is a nullity, and typically occurs where the court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction.” 22B Stephen E. Arthur, Indiana
Practice § 60.2, p. 665-66 (2019) (footnote omitted). Throughout this litigation,
Pannell has never alleged that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction over
him or the subject matter of his claims. Instead, he claims that the federal
district court “failed to follow” federal appellate precedent. Appellant’s App.
Vol. II, p. 42.
[15] Pannell had an opportunity to appeal the federal district court’s decision, and
he may not convert his claim of mere error into a claim that the decision was
void for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Warner v. Young Am. Volunteer Fire Dep’t,
164 Ind. App. 140, 148-49, 326 N.E.2d 831, 836 (1975) (rejecting allegation that
judgment was void because plaintiff lacked capacity to sue; defendant could
have raised that defense during litigation but chose not to do so, and could not
repackage the defense as a jurisdictional issue post-judgment). The trial court
did not err in denying Pannell’s motion to set aside the judgment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-938 | March 3, 2020 Page 6 of 7
Conclusion
[16] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
[17] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-938 | March 3, 2020 Page 7 of 7