Thomas R. Cox v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
Jan 29 2015, 9:47 am
APPELLANT PRO SE
Thomas R. Cox
Panama City, Florida
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Thomas R. Cox, January 29, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
39A04-1402-MI-88
v. Appeal from the Jefferson Superior
Court
The Honorable Alison Frazier
Indiana Bureau of Motor Cause No. 39D01-1310-MI-945
Vehicles,
Appellee-Plaintiff
Bailey, Judge.
[1] Thomas R. Cox (“Cox”), proceeding pro se, appealed the trial court’s dismissal
of his claims against the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”). On
March 21, 2014, during the pendency of the appeal, Cox had filed a motion
captioned as a “motion for correction,” which this Court’s motions panel
ordered held in abeyance. On November 19, 2014, this Court entered its
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Decision on Rehearing 39A04-1402-MI-88 | January 29, 2015 Page 1 of 3
opinion on Cox’s appeal affirming the trial court’s decision, but did not enter an
order on the motion for correction. See Cox v. Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Slip
Op., Cause No. 39A04-1402-MI-00088.
[2] On January 10, 2015, Cox filed his notice of an outstanding motion, seeking a
ruling on the motion for correction. We construe Cox’s notice as a petition for
rehearing, which we grant today for the sole purpose of ruling on Cox’s
previously unaddressed motion for correction.
[3] Cox’s motion, and his petition for rehearing, contend that Cox’s license
suspension “was caused by the BMV’s continuing negligence to clear court
orders.” (Pet’n at 2.) He accordingly requests, “Release the suspensions you
have no right to carry…. Ten years ago, you screwed up, BMV, and have since
continued…. Do the right thing and act on this motion outstanding for over
half a year.” (Pet’n at 3.)
[4] As best we can discern, Cox’s petition is addressed to the BMV more than to
this Court. Even construed as addressed to this Court, Cox’s petition requests
relief we cannot grant. Cox’s trial-level contentions centered on constitutional
and tort claims, the dismissal of which we affirmed in our original decision.
His petition for rehearing seeks correction of administrative agency action,
without having brought or properly perfected such an appeal from agency
action in this case. See, e.g., Dennis v. Bd. of Pub. Safety, 944 N.E.2d 54, 60 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2011) (observing “the basic principle of Indiana administrative law
that a claimant who has an available administrative remedy must exhaust the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Decision on Rehearing 39A04-1402-MI-88 | January 29, 2015 Page 2 of 3
administrative remedy before seeking judicial review”). Absent such a properly
perfected appeal, we lack authority to resolve the issues in Cox’s motion for
correction and petition for rehearing.
[5] Having found no basis upon which to grant relief under Cox’s petition, we deny
his motion for correction and reaffirm in all respects our prior decision in this
matter.
Najam, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Decision on Rehearing 39A04-1402-MI-88 | January 29, 2015 Page 3 of 3