Platt v. State
| Decision Date | 16 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A05-9411-CV-432,49A05-9411-CV-432 |
| Parties | Alton PLATT, Lauren Wright, Carlene Smith, Kenneth Hurt and Jihad Muhammad, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. The STATE of Indiana, Evan Bayh, individually and in his capacity as Governor of Indiana, The Consolidated City of Indianapolis and County of Marion, Stephen Goldsmith, individually and in his capacity as Mayor of the Consolidated City of Indianapolis and County of Marion, and the City-County Council of the Consolidated City of Indianapolis and County of Marion, individually, and in their capacities as members of the City-County Council of the Consolidated City of Indianapolis and County of Marion, The Municipal Court of Marion County, The Superior Court of Marion County, The Marion County Public Defender Agency, and The Marion County Public Defender Board, Appellees-Defendants. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Appeal from the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division Room Five, The Honorable
Christopher L. Burnham, Special Judge Presiding, Cause No. 49D05-9204-CP-378.
Stephen Laudig, Laudig & George, Indianapolis, for Appellant.
Dale Simmons, City Legal Department, Indianapolis, for all County Defendants.
Pamela Carter, Attorney General, Anthony W. Overholt, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for State Defendants.
Alton Platt, Lauren Wright, Carlene Smith, Kenneth Hurt, and Jihad Muhamad, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 1 appeal the order of the trial court dismissing their second amended complaint in this action. Platt raises four issues for appellate review, which we reorder and restate as follows:
I. Whether the trial court properly applied the law of the case doctrine in dismissing Platt's claims against defendants.
II. Whether the system of providing legal defense to indigent criminal defendants in Marion County is constitutionally inadequate.
III. Whether the system of providing legal defense to indigent criminal defendants is racially discriminatory and thus violates the Equal Protection Clause.
IV. Whether the ordinance creating the Marion County Public Defender Board and the Marion County Public Defender Agency violates the separation of powers doctrine.
We affirm.
The facts most favorable to Platt reveal that on April 10, 1992, Platt filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Marion County Public Defender System and seeking mandatory injunctive relief. The original complaint named as defendants the State of Indiana, Governor Evan Bayh, the City of Indianapolis and Marion County, Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith, and the City-County Council. On November 6, 1992, the trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the named defendants did not have "the requisite power, authority, jurisdiction, ability or legal duty" to provide the relief sought by Platt. Supp. Record, p. 9. This dismissal was not appealed.
Thereafter, Platt twice amended the complaint to add additional defendants, so the case at bar also includes the Marion County Superior and Municipal Courts, the Marion County Public Defender Agency, and the Marion County Public Defender Council. The second amended complaint was in fourteen counts, but stated in essence three constitutional claims: (1) that indigent criminal defendants in Marion County receive constitutionally inadequate legal representation; (2) that the public defender system in Marion County is racially discriminatory, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) that Marion County Public Ordinance Number 9, which created the Public Defender Agency and the Public Defender Board, violates constitutionally mandated separation of powers.
On July 8, 1994, the trial court dismissed the second amended complaint on the ground that the law of the case doctrine barred Platt's original claims against the original defendants, due to the previous dismissal of the first complaint. The trial court further concluded that as to all but Count Fourteen of the second amended complaint, Platt stated no claim for relief. With regard to Count Fourteen, the court ordered Platt to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Platt failed to do so and on April 4, 1995, the trial court dismissed Count Fourteen, thus determining all issues in this matter. See Second Supp. Record, p. 3. Platt appeals the dismissal order.
In determining whether a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, facts alleged in the complaint must be taken as true. Dismissal is appropriate only where it appears that under no set of facts could plaintiffs be granted relief. Morton- Finney v. Gilbert, 646 N.E.2d 1387, 1388 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied.
We must first address the issue of whether the law of the case doctrine was properly applied to bar the original claims against the original defendants that were dismissed by court order in 1992. The law of the case doctrine stands for the proposition that:
[F]acts established at one stage of a proceeding, which were part of an issue on which judgment was entered and appeal taken, are unalterably and finally established as part of the law of the case and may not be relitigated at a subsequent stage.
Otte v. Otte, 655 N.E.2d 76, 83 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), reh. denied, trans. pending (quoting Landowners v. City of Fort Wayne, 622 N.E.2d 548, 549 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), reh. denied ). The application of this doctrine is discretionary, and despite its availability, courts retain the power to revisit their prior decisions or those of a coordinate court in any circumstance, "although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances." Otte, supra, at 83-84 (citing Landowners, supra, at 549).
In this case, the trial court dismissed the original claims based on Ind.Trial Rule 12(B)(6), concluding that Platt's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. After Platt twice amended his complaint, the trial court dismissed the original claims as to the original defendants, concluding that the prior dismissal constituted the law of the case, and barred the similar claims in the second amended complaint.
Whether the law of the case doctrine is applicable to allegations in an amended complaint filed after a T.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal has never been addressed by the courts of this jurisdiction. However, this issue can be resolved by examining the effect of a dismissal pursuant to T.R. 12(B)(6). T.R. 12(B)(6) provides that a defendant may file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The rule further provides in relevant part that "[w]hen a motion to dismiss is sustained for failure to state a claim under subdivision (B)(6) of this rule the pleading may be amended once as of right ..." T.R. 12(B).
When a party exercises his automatic right to amend pursuant to this rule, the amended pleading replaces the original pleading for all purposes, and all rights to appeal the original dismissal are lost. Anderson v. Anderson, 399 N.E.2d 391, 406, n. 30 (Ind.Ct.App.1979) (citing McKenna v. Turpin, 128 Ind.App. 636, 151 N.E.2d 303 (1958)). Accordingly, a T.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal is without prejudice, since the complaining party remains able to file an amended complaint within the parameters of the rule. A T.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal becomes an adjudication on the merits only after the complaining party opts to appeal the order instead of filing an amended complaint. See Browning v. Walters, 616 N.E.2d 1040, 1044 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) modified on other grounds, 620 N.E.2d 28 ().
With this in mind, we now consider the trial court's application of the law of the case doctrine to the circumstances at bar. The law of the case doctrine requires the presence of "facts established at one stage of a proceeding, which were part of an issue on which judgment was entered and appeal taken ..." Otte, supra, at 83. Because a T.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal order is not final and appealable once an amended complaint is filed, it involves neither facts nor issues on which judgment was entered or appeal taken. Therefore, such order should not have the preclusive effect that the application of the law of the case doctrine would give it. As a result, the trial court erred when it relied upon the law of the case doctrine as a basis for dismissing Counts I through XII of Platt's second amended complaint.
Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial economy, rather than remanding this case based upon the trial court's erroneous application of the law of the case to the first twelve counts of Platt's complaint, we will address the merits of the first twelve counts of the complaint as well as the merits of the dismissal of Counts XIII and XIV as these issues are fully briefed.
Platt contends that the trial court erred in denying his petition to enjoin the Marion County public defender system because it is inadequate under both the United States and Indiana Constitutions.
The granting or refusing of injunctive relief is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Oakes v. Hattabaugh, 631 N.E.2d 949, 953 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), reh. denied, trans. denied. A mandatory or prohibitory injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy which should be granted with caution. Id. The plaintiff carries the burden of demonstrating injury which is certain and irreparable if the injunction is denied. Campbell v. Spade, 617 N.E.2d 580, 583 (Ind.Ct.App.1993). In making its decision, the trial court must weigh whether the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law and the court must consider whether an injunction is in the public interest. Id. The trial court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. JONES
... ... he served as chief trial deputy and eventually assistant district attorney, as a criminal defense lawyer in California and Arizona, and as a state-licensed criminal investigator for the alternate public 186 Cal.App.4th 229 defender in San Diego County. His testimony related to the standard ... (See, e.g., Platt v. State, supra, 664 N.E.2d at pp. 362365 [an action challenging the constitutionality of county public defender system that lacks sufficient funds ... ...
-
Duncan v. State
... ... 18 Defendants and the dissent here favor the approach twice rejected in the Luckey cases. We choose not to give weight to a dissenting judge's analysis that failed to convince a majority of judges on the Eleventh Circuit of its correctness ... In Platt v. State, 664 N.E.2d 357, 362 (Ind.App., 1996), a civil suit was brought seeking injunctive relief premised on the contention "that the system for providing legal counsel for indigents in Marion County lacks sufficient funds for pretrial investigation and preparation which inherently causes ... ...
-
Defender v. State
... ... The State's position is that we cannot know if a particular deficiency is harmless until viewed in the context of the whole trial. See Platt v. State, 664 N.E.2d 357, 363 (Ind.App.Ct.1996) ([A]ny violation of the Sixth Amendment must be reviewed in the context of the whole trial process, as the determination of the effectiveness of counsel is whether the defendant had the assistance necessary to justify reliance on the outcome of the ... ...
-
Duncan v. State, Docket Nos. 139345
... ... of the Appellate Division that the claims of a class of indigent defendants were not justiciable and reinstating the plaintiffs' complaint because it contained[ed] numerous plain allegations that in specific cases counsel simply was not provided at critical stages of the proceedings.); Platt v. Indiana, 664 N.E.2d 357, 363 (Ind.App., 1996) (affirming the dismissal of the claims of a class of indigent defendants challenging a county indigent defense system, concluding that the claims were not reviewable because a violation of a Sixth Amendment right will arise only after a defendant ... ...
-
Conditional Rules in Criminal Procedure: Alice in Wonderland Meets the Constitution
...on the police, they have to be aware that Miranda violations don't occur in the police station but in the courtroom. 404. Piatt v. State, 664 N.E.2d 357, 363 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), cert, denied sub nom, Piatt v. Indiana, 520 U.S. 1187 (1997); see also People v. District Court of El Paso Coun......