MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 31 2018, 9:56 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kevin L. Martin Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Carlisle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Frances Barrow
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kevin L. Martin, December 31, 2018
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CT-1980
v. Appeal from the Sullivan Circuit
Court
Hon. Nancy Vaidik, Charles The Honorable Robert E.
Dugan, Makenzy Gilbert, and Hunley, II, Judge
Greg Pachmayr, Trial Court Cause No.
Appellees-Defendants 77C01-1804-CT-283
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-1980 | December 31, 2018 Page 1 of 5
[1] Kevin Martin filed a complaint against a judge of this Court, two employees of
the Department of Correction (DOC), and the court clerk. Martin now appeals,
arguing that the trial court erred by dismissing his complaint. Finding no error,
we affirm.
[2] Martin is currently serving sentences for murder, battery, and battery by bodily
waste. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his murder conviction
in St. Joseph County; on December 1, 2017, his petition was denied. On
December 16, 2017, Martin filed a notice of appeal regarding the denial of his
petition for post-conviction relief. On January 4, 2018, he unsuccessfully filed
his brief, which had incorrect pagination, lacked page headers, and included
documents not permitted. Martin filed three other defective briefs on February
7, March 5, and March 22, 2018.
[3] On March 29, 2018, this Court issued an order that gave Martin a final
extension to April 13, 2018, to file a brief and appendix free of defects. The
order advised Martin that failure to comply could result in summary dismissal
of his appeal. On April 4, 2018, Martin tendered a fifth brief with the same
defects. On May 1, 2018, this Court ordered the appeal dismissed with
prejudice because of Martin’s failure to file a defect-free brief and appendix.
The dismissal order was signed by Chief Judge Vaidik.
[4] On June 6, 2018, Martin filed a complaint in Sullivan County against Chief
Judge Vaidik, DOC employees Charles Dugan and Makenzy Gilbert, and Greg
Pachmayr, the clerk of the court (collectively, the Appellees). Martin alleged
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-1980 | December 31, 2018 Page 2 of 5
that he gave certain paperwork, which apparently was his brief and a motion for
a new trial, to Dugan, a facility case worker; that Gilbert, a clerical assistant,
could corroborate this allegation; that Pachmayr rejected the brief and motion;
and that Chief Judge Vaidik misused the power of the court and was biased
against him because he had filed a complaint against her. Martin sought release
from prison and punitive damages. On July 13, 2018, the Appellees filed a
motion to dismiss pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1) and (6). On July 13,
2018, Martin filed an opposing motion. On August 3, 2018, the trial court
ordered Martin’s complaint dismissed. Martin now appeals.
[5] Martin argues that the trial court erred by dismissing his complaint pursuant to
Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1) and (6). Trial Rule 12(B)(1) allows for a dismissal
of a complaint if there is a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We review de
novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss under Trial Rule 12(B)(1)
where the facts before the trial court are undisputed. GKN Co. v. Magness, 744
N.E.2d 397, 401 (Ind. 2001). Trial Rule 12(B)(6) allows for a dismissal of a
complaint if there is a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
A motion to dismiss under Trial Rule 12(B)(6) “tests the legal sufficiency of a
complaint: that is, whether the allegations in the complaint establish any set of
circumstances under which a plaintiff would be entitled to relief.” Lockhart v.
State, 38 N.E.3d 215, 217 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (internal quotations omitted).
We apply a de novo standard of review to a trial court’s ruling on a Trial Rule
12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-1980 | December 31, 2018 Page 3 of 5
[6] As for Martin’s allegations against Dugan and Gilbert, the trial court found that
no facts were alleged against them on which relief could be granted and that
they are merely witnesses. We agree. Dugan allegedly mailed paperwork to
the Court, and Gilbert was a witness who could corroborate that Dugan mailed
that paperwork. Similarly, Martin alleged that Pachmayr rejected Martin’s
brief and motion for new trial. Indiana Trial Rule 8(A)(1) requires that a
complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Martin alleged no facts regarding Dugan,
Gilbert, or Pachmayr that could be called a “claim” by which he would be
entitled to relief. The trial court did not err by dismissing the complaint as it
related to Dugan and Gilbert.
[7] Regarding Martin’s allegations against Chief Judge Vaidik, the trial court found
that the judge is immune for the actions alleged in the complaint. “It is well-
settled that judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for all actions taken
in the judge’s judicial capacity, unless those actions are taken in the complete
absence of any jurisdiction.” Droscha v. Shepherd, 931 N.E.2d 882, 888-89 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2010). Judicial immunity serves “to preserve judicial independence in
the decision-making process.” Id. at 889. A judicial officer is immune even
when the action she took was in error or outside her authority. Newman v.
Deiter, 702 N.E.2d 1093, 1098 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). It seems that Martin
alleges that Chief Judge Vaidik misused the power of the court and was biased
against him. We note that Martin offers no facts to substantiate his allegation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-1980 | December 31, 2018 Page 4 of 5
Regardless, Chief Judge Vaidik has judicial immunity. The trial court did not
err by dismissing the complaint as it related to Chief Judge Vaidik.
[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-1980 | December 31, 2018 Page 5 of 5