Justise v. Marion Cnty. Jail

• Decision Date: 22 May 2013
• Docket Number: No. 49A02–1203–PL–291.,49A02–1203–PL–291.
• Citation: 988 N.E.2d 403
• Parties: Charles E. JUSTISE Sr., Appellant–Plaintiff, v. MARION COUNTY JAIL, Indiana Department of Correction, Jerry Huston in his official capacity, Karen Richards in her official capacity, and Stephen Hall, Appellees–Defendants.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

988 N.E.2d 403

Charles E. JUSTISE Sr., Appellant–Plaintiff,

v.MARION COUNTY JAIL, Indiana Department of Correction, Jerry Huston in his official capacity, Karen Richards in her official capacity, and Stephen Hall, Appellees–Defendants.

No. 49A02–1203–PL–291.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

May 22, 2013.

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court; The Honorable Theodore M. Sosin, Judge;CauseNo. 49D02–1107–PL–25903.

Charles E. Justise Sr., Michigan City, IN, AppellantPro Se.

Brandon P. Elward, Assistant CorporationCounsel, Office of Corporation Counsel, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellee Marion County Jail.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Kathy Bradley, Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee Indiana Department of Correction.

MEMORANDUM DECISION—NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

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

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.SeeHouston v. Wireman,439 N.E.2d 732, 733(Ind.Ct.App.1982).In any event, we review either motion for an abuse of discretion.SeeParagon 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. Hen ry,111 Ind.App. 179, 38 N.E.2d 909, 911(1942);see alsoIrish 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 alleged the denial of both access to the courts and his...