Charles E. Justise, Sr. v. Marion County Jail, Indiana Dept. of Correction, Jerry Huston, Karen Richards, and Stephen Hall

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 May 22 2013, 9:24 am
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
MARION COUNTY JAIL:
CHARLES E. JUSTISE SR.
Michigan City, Indiana BRANDON P. ELWARD
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Office of Corporation Counsel
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE INDIANA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION:
GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Attorney General of Indiana
KATHY BRADLEY
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
CHARLES E. JUSTISE SR., )
)
Appellant-Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1203-PL-291
)
MARION COUNTY JAIL, INDIANA )
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, )
JERRY HUSTON in his official capacity, )
KAREN RICHARDS in her official capacity, )
and STEPHEN HALL, )
)
Appellees-Defendants. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Theodore M. Sosin, Judge
Cause No. 49D02-1107-PL-25903
May 22, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BARTEAU, Senior Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charles Justise appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for relief from
judgment as well as a subsequent order rescinding the waiver of his filing fee and staying
the proceedings until receipt of the fee. We affirm the denial of his motion for relief from
judgment and dismiss the remainder of the appeal.
ISSUES
We consider two issues in this appeal:
I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Justise’s motion for
relief from judgment.
II. Whether we must dismiss the portion of the appeal relating to payment of
the filing fee for lack of jurisdiction.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In July 2011, Justise filed a complaint against the Marion County Jail (“MCJ”),
the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”), Jerry Huston in his official capacity, and
Karen Richards in her official capacity. The complaint alleged the defendants denied him
access to the courts and sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. The trial
court waived Justise’s filing fee upon request.
2
The MCJ moved for judgment on the pleadings in October 2011, and Justise
responded in December 2011. Justise then moved for leave to file an amended complaint
and tendered a proposed amended complaint, which named the DOC and Stephen Hall as
the only defendants. On January 4, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting
Justise’s motion for leave to amend and granting the MCJ’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings. It thus dismissed Justise’s complaint against the MCJ with prejudice, noted
there was no reason for delay, and directed entry of a final judgment in the MCJ’s favor.
On January 17, 2012, the DOC, Huston, and Richards filed a motion asking the
court to reconsider its waiver of Justise’s filing fee, and on January 23, 2012, Justise filed
a motion for relief from the judgment dismissing the MCJ as a defendant. On March 2,
2012, the trial court held a hearing on both motions, denied Justise’s motion for relief
from judgment, and took the motion to reconsider waiver of the filing fee under
advisement. On March 13, 2012, Justise filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his
motion for relief from judgment.
On April 13, 2012, the trial court granted the DOC’s motion, rescinded the waiver
of the filing fee, noted that the matter would be dismissed if Justise failed to pay the fee
by May 13, 2012, and stayed the proceedings until receipt of the fee. On June 15, 2012,
Justise filed a notice of appeal from that order.1
1
Although Justise has not paid the filing fee, the trial court has not dismissed the case.
3
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
I. DENIAL OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
Justise’s January 23, 2012 motion for relief from judgment noted that the court’s
January 4, 2012 order stated that Justise had not responded to the MCJ’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings. He therefore enclosed a copy of his December 2011 response
and requested that the MCJ be reinstated as a defendant.
Because Justise’s denominated motion for relief from judgment was filed within
the time period for filing a motion to correct error and because the issue raised therein is
appropriate to a motion to correct error, we treat it as a motion to correct error. See
Houston v. Wireman, 439 N.E.2d 732, 733 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). In any event, we review
either motion for an abuse of discretion. See Paragon Family Rest. v. Bartolini, 799
N.E.2d 1048, 1055 (Ind. 2003) (reviewing ruling on motion to correct error for abuse of
discretion); Stonger v. Sorrell, 776 N.E.2d 353, 358 (Ind. 2002) (reviewing ruling on
motion for relief from judgment for abuse of discretion).
We find no abuse of discretion here. After the MCJ moved for judgment on the
pleadings and Justise filed his response, Justise filed an amended complaint that named
the DOC and Stephen Hall as the only defendants. “Where an amended complaint,
complete in itself, is filed, it supersedes the prior complaint and no rulings made upon
motions or demurrers addressed to the prior complaint are available as error on appeal.”
Inter State Motor Freight Sys. v. Henry, 111 Ind. App. 179, 38 N.E.2d 909, 911 (1942);
see also Irish v. Woods, 864 N.E.2d 1117, 1119 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (filing of
amended complaint supersedes original complaint). Justise’s amended complaint, which
4
alleged the denial of both access to the courts and his religious rights, was complete in
itself. It therefore replaced his original complaint. Because the MCJ was not named as a
defendant in the amended complaint, Justise effectively abandoned his claims against the
MCJ. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Justise’s denominated motion for relief from the judgment granting the MCJ’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings and dismissing the MCJ as a defendant.
II. RESCISSION OF FILING FEE WAIVER
Justise also challenges the trial court’s order rescinding its waiver of the filing fee.
However, the order was not an interlocutory order appealable as a matter of right. See
Rowe v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 940 N.E.2d 1218, 1220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (dismissing
appeal of denial of petition to waive filing fees and court costs where plaintiff failed to
request discretionary interlocutory appeal), trans. denied. Because Justise did not request
the trial court to certify its order for interlocutory appeal and then request this Court to
accept jurisdiction, we must dismiss this portion of his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
We therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of Justise’s motion for relief from
judgment and dismiss the remainder of the appeal.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.
KIRSCH, J., and MAY, J., concur.
5