Anthony Fisher v. Thomas VanVleet and Dustin Gary (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 29 2016, 5:40 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE
Anthony Fisher
Pendleton, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Anthony Fisher, January 29, 2016
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
56A03-1508-SC-1142
v. Appeal from the Newton County
Circuit Court
Thomas VanVleet and The Honorable Jeryl F. Leach,
Dustin Gary, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
Appellees-Defendants
56C01-1501-SC-6
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 56A03-1508-SC-1142 | January 29, 2016 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary
[1] Pro se Appellant-Plaintiff Anthony Fisher (“Fisher”) appeals a small claims
judgment in favor of Appellees-Defendants Thomas VanVleet and Dustin Gary
upon Fisher’s replevin claim. We affirm.
Issues
[2] Fisher presents two issues for review, which we restate as the following issues:
I. Whether the claim was improperly dismissed because
Fisher’s Third Request for Extension of Time was deemed
to be untimely filed; and
II. Whether he was entitled to a third continuance of the
small claims proceedings.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In January of 2009, Fisher and James Daher (“Daher”) were arrested in St.
Joseph County, Indiana, after having escaped imprisonment in Newton
County, Indiana. Incident to the arrests, Newton County Sheriff’s Sergeant
Dustin Gary (“Sergeant Gary”) recovered two cell phones and $7,000.00 in
cash. On January 26, 2015, Fisher filed a small claim against Sergeant Gary
and Sheriff Thomas VanVleet for replevin of $6,000.00, the limit of small claims
jurisdiction.
[4] On February 9, 2015, Fisher – who remained incarcerated – filed a motion in
the small claims court seeking approval for a trial by affidavit or electronic or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 56A03-1508-SC-1142 | January 29, 2016 Page 2 of 8
telephonic means. The small claims court ordered that the matter proceed by
affidavit. Fisher was ordered to submit evidence to the small claims court by
February 24, 2015, but was granted leave to file additional materials responsive
to the defendants’ submissions, up until March 10, 2015.
[5] On February 23, 2015, Fisher filed his “submission of evidence” in the small
claims court. (App. at 2.) On February 26, 2015, the defendants filed a joint
submission of evidence. A “summary” signed by Sergeant Gary stated that a
check for $7,000.00 had been issued to Daher. (App. at 20.)
[6] On March 9, 2015, Fisher filed a motion for a continuance. The request was
granted, with Fisher allowed an additional sixty days to respond to the
defendants’ submission. On March 13, 2015, Fisher filed a motion seeking a
trial transcript of a “related case.” (App. at 2.) According to Fisher, a
transcript of Daher’s criminal trial would reveal that the money belonged to
Fisher. On April 6, 2015, Fisher requested this transcript at public expense.
[7] On April 10, 2015, the small claims court denied Fisher’s claim and purportedly
“dismissed” the case. (App. at 2.) Fisher filed a motion to reconsider, pointing
out that the small claims court had not ruled upon his motion for a transcript.
In response, the small claims court set aside its judgment. On April 27, 2015,
the small claims court denied Fisher’s request for the Daher transcript,1 but
1
Fisher was directed to make his transcript request in the Newton County Superior Court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 56A03-1508-SC-1142 | January 29, 2016 Page 3 of 8
granted Fisher time up to and including May 11, 2015 to respond to the
defendants’ submission of evidence.
[8] On May 11, 2015, Fisher filed an additional request for an extension of time to
submit his proof by affidavit. On May 13, 2015, the small claims court granted
Fisher “an additional sixty days.” (App. at 3.) On May 21, 2015, Fisher filed a
motion in the Newton County Superior Court seeking the Daher transcript.
[9] On July 13, 2015, Fisher filed his third motion for an extension of time to
submit his proof by affidavit. He advised that he was “in the process of
purchasing the transcript from the Indiana Court of Appeals.” (App. at 29.)
On the same day, the small claims court entered an order providing:
The deadlines for pleadings in this case have passed. The Court
finds that the Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of proof.
The Defendants acted appropriately pursuant to a court order
regarding the funds at issue in this case and have no liability
under this case.
Plaintiff[’s] claim is denied and dismissed this 13th day of July,
2015.
(App. at 5.) This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Standard of Review
[10] Indiana Small Claims Rule 8(A) provides:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 56A03-1508-SC-1142 | January 29, 2016 Page 4 of 8
The trial shall be informal, with the sole objective of dispensing
speedy justice between the parties according to the rules of
substantive law, and shall not be bound by the statutory
provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleadings or evidence
except provisions relating to privileged communications and
offers of compromise.
[11] Accordingly, appellate review of a small claims decision is particularly
deferential. Morton v. Ivacic, 898 N.E.2d 1196, 1199 (Ind. 2008). Generally, we
review factual determinations for clear error and review questions of law de
novo. Id. However, where a small claims case turns solely on documentary
evidence, we review de novo, just as we review summary judgment rulings and
other paper records. Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (Ind.
2006).
[12] We note that the defendant officers have not filed an appellee’s brief. When the
appellee fails to submit a brief, we need not undertake the appellee’s burden of
responding to arguments that are advanced for reversal by the appellant.
Hamiter v. Torrence, 717 N.E.2d 1249, 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). Rather, we
may reverse the trial court if the appellant makes a prima facie case of error. Id.
“Prima facie” is defined as “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of
it.” Id. Still, we are obligated to correctly apply the law to the facts in the
record in order to determine whether reversal is required. Id.
Timeliness of Filing
[13] Fisher asserts that his third motion for an extension of time was timely filed and
thus challenges the small claims court’s statement: “The deadlines for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 56A03-1508-SC-1142 | January 29, 2016 Page 5 of 8
pleadings in this case have passed.” (App. at 5.) The timeliness argument
appears to be based upon the premise that the small claims court dismissed the
claim for failure to comply with the deadline for submission of responsive
materials.
[14] However, although the small claims court used the word “dismissed” in
conjunction with the word “denied,” the substance of the order indicates that
the small claims court adjudicated the claim on its merits. (App. at 5.) Fisher
filed a motion rather than an evidentiary submission addressed by the prior
continuance order; the small claims court did not deem the motion an untimely
pleading; and the matter was not dismissed.
Third Motion for a Continuance
[15] Fisher asserts that he has a constitutional right to bring a civil action and that
the denial of his third motion for a continuance denied him due process. Fisher
correctly observes that a prisoner has a constitutional right to bring a civil
action, pursuant to Article 1, § 12 of the Indiana Constitution: “[a]ll courts
shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property
or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.”
[16] Implicit in the right to bring a civil claim is the right to present the claim in
court. Zimmerman v. Hanks, 766 N.E.2d 752, 757-58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
Avenues available include such procedures as submission by documentary
evidence, trial by telephonic conference, representation by counsel, and
postponement until release from incarceration. Hill v. Duckworth, 679 N.E.2d
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 56A03-1508-SC-1142 | January 29, 2016 Page 6 of 8
938, 940 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). Here, Fisher was afforded the opportunity to
submit his claim by affidavit.
[17] The crux of Fisher’s argument is that he was entitled to a third continuance as a
matter of due process. He suggests that a small claims court must grant
repetitive motions for continuances so long as the small claims litigant is “duly
diligent” in pursuing his proof. (Appellant’s Br. at 5.) This assertion is not in
accordance with the Indiana Small Claims Rules.
[18] Indiana Small Claims Rule 9 governs continuances, and provides that either
party may be granted a continuance for good cause shown. Moreover,
“[e]xcept in unusual circumstances no party shall be allowed more than one (1)
continuance in any case, and all continuances must have the specific approval
of the court.” S.C.R. 9(A). We review the small claims court’s ruling on a
motion for a continuance for an abuse of discretion. Multivest Props. V. Hughes,
671 N.E.2d 199, 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).
[19] Here, the small claims court had granted Fisher two continuances. By the time
of Fisher’s third motion, he did not represent that he had obtained relevant
materials and needed time to review and present them. Rather, he asserted that
he was attempting to procure a transcript through an appellate court. Given the
history of multiple continuances and the posture of the case, we cannot say that
the trial court abused its discretion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 56A03-1508-SC-1142 | January 29, 2016 Page 7 of 8
Conclusion
[20] Fisher has demonstrated no reversible error in the small claims court decision.
[21] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 56A03-1508-SC-1142 | January 29, 2016 Page 8 of 8