from the Sullivan Circuit Court The Honorable Christopher A.
Newton, Special Judge Trial Court Cause No.
APPELLANT PRO SE Kevin Martin.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General
of Indiana Abigail R. Recker Deputy Attorney General.
Kevin Martin appeals the trial court's order dismissing
his complaint against the Honorable Hugh Hunt, individually
and in his personal capacity; Sullivan Circuit Court Clerk
Peggy Goodman; and Indiana Department of Correction
("DOC") employees Brenda Hinton and Charles Dugan
(collectively, "Defendants"). We affirm.
and Procedural History
On April 11, 2018, Martin filed a complaint against
Defendants alleging various violations of his due process
rights stemming from an incident involving DOC librarian
Hinton and a disagreement regarding a copying request Martin
made. Martin requested he be released from prison as a result
of his pain and suffering in the matter. In July 2018,
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On August 27, 2018,
Martin filed leave to file an amended complaint, which the
trial court treated as an amended complaint.
On August 29, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, arguing Judge Hunt had judicial immunity;
the court lacked jurisdiction to release Martin from prison
as requested; the same case was pending before the Indiana
Court of Appeals; and the action was contrary to public
policy. On October 4, 2018, the trial court granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss finding it lacked
jurisdiction to release Martin from prison; Judge Hunt was
judicially immune from the actions alleged in Martin's
complaint; the same case was pending before the Indiana
Supreme Court on a petition to transfer from the Indiana
Court of Appeals; and "[b]ecause the plaintiff is
engaging in serial litigation, suing those involved in orders
in previous cases with which he does not agree, this action
is contrary to public policy and must, for that reason, be
dismissed." (Appellees' App. Vol. II at 37.)
As an initial matter, we note Martin appeared before the
trial court and in this appeal pro se. It is well settled
that pro se litigants are held to the same standards
as licensed attorneys, and thus they are required to follow
procedural rules. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338,
344 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004), trans. denied. Fatal to
Martin's appeal is his non-compliance with several
sections of Indiana Appellate Rule 46, which has also been
the reason for dismissal or waiver of issues in several other
appeals Martin has filed. See Martin v. Howe, et.
al., 18A-CT-680, 2018 WL 5956300 (Ind.Ct.App. November
14, 2018) (dismissal of appeal based, in part, on
Martin's failure to make a cogent argument), trans.
denied; Martin v. Brown, et. al., 18A-CT-2940,
2019 WL 1217796 (Ind.Ct.App. March 15, 2019) (affirmed
dismissal of complaint based on violations of Indiana Rules
of Appellate Procedure), trans. denied; Martin
v. Gilbert, et. al., 18A-CT-2095, 20149 WL 2363327
(Ind.Ct.App. June 5, 2019) (affirmed dismissal of complaint
based on violations of Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure),
Specifically, Martin's appellate brief did not include a
Statement of the Case or a Statement of the Facts, both of
which are required pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule
46(A)(5) and Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(6) respectively. In
addition, his brief includes several violations of Indiana
Appellate Rules 46(A)(8)(a)-(b), which require, in relevant
(8) Argument. This section shall contain the appellant's
contentions why the trial court or Administrative Agency
committed reversible error.
(a) The argument must contain the contentions of the
appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent
reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations to
the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the
Record on Appeal relied on, in accordance with Rule 22.
(b) The argument must include for each issue a concise
statement of the applicable standard of review; this
statement may appear in the discussion of each issue or under
a separate heading placed before the discussion of the
issues. In addition, the argument must include a brief
statement of the procedural and substantive facts necessary
for consideration of the issues presented on appeal,
including a statement of how ...