from the Vanderburgh Superior Court The Honorable S. Brent
Almon, Special Judge Trial Court Cause No. 82D07-1601-CT-132
Attorney for Appellant Mark K. Phillips Boonville
Attorneys for Appellees Michael E. DiRienzo Jeffrey W. Ahlers
Kahn, Dees, Donovan & Kahn, LLP
[¶1] Charles Brown appeals the trial
court's dismissal of his amended complaint against
Vanderburgh County Sheriff's Department
("VCSD") and Vanderburgh County, Indiana ("the
County"). Brown contends that the trial court erred.
Finding no error, we affirm.
and Procedural History
[¶2] Brown was involved in a motorcycle
accident on July 24, 2014. Due to injuries he suffered in the
accident, he was taken by ambulance to Deaconess Hospital in
Evansville. Upon his release from the hospital the following
day, Brown was arrested by Evansville City Police Department
officers for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and he
was transported to the Vanderburgh County Detention Center.
Brown was released from the detention center on July 30,
On January 20, 2015, Brown mailed his tort claim notice to
VCSD, Vanderburgh County Sheriff Dave Wedding, Vanderburgh
County Commissioners, the Indiana Political Subdivision Risk
Management Commission, and the Indiana Attorney General,
alleging a claim that he suffered injuries and damages while
in the detention center as a result of VCSD's
"unprofessionalism, misconduct, failure to provide
medical care, and abuse of power." Appellant's App.
at 15. A little less than a year later, on January 11, 2016,
Brown filed a complaint for damages naming the City of
Evansville ("the City") and Un-Named Police
Officers as the sole defendants.
On July 26, 2016, the City filed a motion for summary
judgment stating that the City had no control or jurisdiction
over the Vanderburgh County Detention Center. On August 8,
2016, Brown filed a motion to amend his complaint stating
that he had named "the wrong parties" in the
initial complaint and that he wished to name VCSD and the
County as defendants. Id. at 45. The trial court
granted his motion to amend on September 8, 2016.
On October 27, 2016, VCSD and the County filed a motion to
dismiss arguing that Brown's amended complaint was filed
after the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations.
Following a hearing, the trial court entered a detailed order
granting the motion to dismiss. This appeal ensued.
[¶6] A motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted tests the
legal sufficiency of a claim, not the supporting facts.
Veolia Water Indpls., LLC v. Nat'l Trust Ins.
Co., 3 N.E.3d 1, 4 (Ind. 2014). An appellate court
engages in a de novo review of the trial court's grant or
denial of a motion based on Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6).
Id. We stand in the shoes of the trial court and
must determine if the trial court erred in its application of
the law. Chenore v. Plantz, 56 N.E.3d 123, 126
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which
relief may be granted is an appropriate means of raising the
statute of limitations. Id. When the complaint shows
on its face that the statute of limitations has run, the
defendant may file a Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion. Id.
The trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss is proper
if it is apparent that ...