Martin v. Brown, 031519 INCA, 18A-CT-2940
|Opinion Judge:||Crone, Judge.|
|Party Name:||Kevin Martin, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Richard Brown, et. al., Appellees-Defendants|
|Attorney:||Appellant Pro Se Kevin Martin Wabash Valley Correctional Facility Carlisle, Indiana Attorneys for Appellee Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General Natalie F. Weiss Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana|
|Judge Panel:||Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.|
|Case Date:||March 15, 2019|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Indiana|
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.
Appeal from the Sullivan Superior Court The Honorable Hugh R. Hunt, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 77D01-1807-CT-361
Appellant Pro Se Kevin Martin Wabash Valley Correctional Facility Carlisle, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General Natalie F. Weiss Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
[¶1] Kevin Martin, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
("WVCF"), appeals the trial court's order entering judgment on the pleadings and dismissing with prejudice his complaint filed against Richard Brown, Charles Dugan, Michelle Martin, and Jerricha Meeks (collectively "the Defendants").1 He makes various assertions of trial court error. Concluding that he has waived our review of these alleged errors, we affirm.
Discussion and Decision
[¶2] We begin by noting that Martin proceeds pro se. A litigant who proceeds pro se is held to the same rules of procedure that trained counsel is bound to follow Smith v. Donahue, 907 N.E.2d 553, 555 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009), trans. denied, cert. dismissed. Pro se litigants are afforded no inherent leniency simply by virtue of being self-represented. Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 266 (Ind. 2014). One risk a litigant takes when he proceeds pro se is that he will not know how to accomplish all the things an attorney would know how to accomplish. Smith, 907 N.E.2d at 555. When a party elects to represent himself, there is no reason for us to indulge in any benevolent presumption on his behalf or to waive any rule for the orderly and proper conduct of the appeal. Foley v. Mannor, 844 N.E.2d 494, 496 n.1 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006).
[¶3] Although failure to comply with the appellate rules does not...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP