Eric J. Mapes, Appellant, v. Carroll County, Indiana, et al., Appellees. (2025)

Order

[1] Since 2017, Appellant has initiated eighteen (18) appeals in either this Court or our Supreme Court. Three appeals were initiated in our Supreme Court – an original action that was dismissed and two cases that were transferred to this Court. All of Appellant's appeals have been dismissed except this appeal and his post-conviction appeal in Cause Number 21A-PC-250. Almost all the appeals were dismissed because there was no final judgment.

[2] In 2023, our Supreme Court issued an order denying Appellant's Petition to Transfer and cautioning him “that continuing his pattern of misuse of motions practice, and his misuse of Clerk's Office resources and abuse towards its personnel, will likely result in the Court restricting his filings and his communications with Clerk personnel.” Mapes v. State, 201 N.E.3d 1168 (Ind. 2023). At that time, Appellant had initiated ten appeals. The Court noted Appellant's appeals “consistently involved procedural or substantive deficiencies” and that Appellant's filings were “repetitive, immaterial, or otherwise abusive of the judicial process[.]” Id. at 1169. Despite its findings of Appellant's “abusive conduct”, the Court declined to impose protective restrictions at that time. Id. at 1170. But the Court cautioned Appellant “that if he continues similar abuse of motions practice and of Clerk's Office personnel and resources, such restrictions will likely be ordered against him – for example, rejection without opportunity to cure for any filings that do not comply strictly with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and limitation to written communications with the Clerk's Office.

[3] Appellant did not take the warning from our Supreme Court to heart. Since the Supreme Court issued its order on February 9, 2023, Appellant has initiated seven more appeals, all of which have been dismissed except this appeal.

[4] Appellant initiated this appeal on March 18, 2025. In the span of four months, Appellant has filed nearly fifty (50) separate documents, many accompanied by attachments. On July 11, 2025, the Court issued an order noting that Appellant's filings have been excessive, repetitive, and a drain on Court resources. The Court warned Appellant that continued excessive and repetitive filings may result in the imposition of filing restrictions.

[5] Appellant, again, did not heed the Court's warning and proceeded to unleash a flood of filings. Some of the filings appear to predate the Court's July 11 order. For instance, on July 10, Appellant filed the following documents: (1) Motion to Reaffirm Related Filings and Correct Record; (2) a second Motion to Reaffirm Related Filings and Correct Record; (3) Motion to Reaffirm In Forma Pauperis Status and Acknowledge Systemic Financial Hardship; and (4) Declaration of Acknowledgment of Procedural Defect and Clerk's Noncompliance.

[6] But since the Court issued its order on July 11, Appellant has tendered or filed ten documents including the following: (1) Notice of Related Filings in Support of Record Clarification; (2) Notice and Motion to Enjoin Discriminatory Conduct, Retaliatory Mischaracterization, and Procedural Obstruction Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504, of the Rehabilitation Act, and Federal Constitutional Law, which is accompanied by seven attachments; (3) Motion to Introduce Supplemental Evidence and Request for Mandated Injunctive Relief; (4) Response to July 11, 2025 Court Order & Request for Affirmation of Procedural and Disability-Based Rights; (5) Supplemental Motion to Preserve Federal Rights and Object to Retaliatory Court Order in Violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 407(a), and Constitutional Protections; (6) Notice of Disability Certification and Procedural Rights, which is accompanied by two attachments; (7) Motion to Recuse Judge Elizabeth F. Tavitas and Associated Panel Members; (8) Notice of Filing and Motion to Vacate July 14, 2025 Order as Void Due to Judicial Disqualification, Retaliation, and Structural Rights Violations; (9) a tendered Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Aid of Appellate Jurisdiction; and (10) Declaration of Eric J. Mapes In Support of Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Aid of Appellate Jurisdiction to Compel Judicial Compliance with ADA and Constitutional Mandates.

[7] Like his filings earlier in this case, Appellant's filings since the Court issued its July 11 order are excessive, repetitive, and a drain on judicial resources.

[8] Additionally, the Clerk of the Court confirms that the abusive interactions between Appellant and personnel in the Clerk's Office noted by our Supreme Court in 2023 continue to this day.

[9] The Court finds that Appellant is a prolific, abusive litigant whose numerous filings have been a drain on judicial resources. “Every resource that courts devote to an abusive litigant is a resource denied to other legitimate cases with good-faith litigants.” Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). As such, “[t]here is no right to engage in abusive litigation, and the state has a legitimate interest in the preservation of valuable judicial and administrative resources.” Id. Courts have the inherent authority to impose reasonable restrictions on any abusive litigant including instructing “the clerk to reject without return for correction future filings that do not strictly comply with applicable rules of procedure and conditions ordered by the court.” Id. at 269.

[10] Having reviewed the matter, the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. Any outstanding motions or other documents that seek relief filed by Appellant from July 10, 2025 through the date of this order are denied.

2. With regard to this appeal, the Clerk is directed to reject without return for correction all documents tendered by Appellant except any Petition for Rehearing or Petition to Transfer.

3. Any tendered Petition for Rehearing or Petition to Transfer should be received by the Clerk and transmitted to the applicable Court for review.

4. Rejected documents should not be docketed by the Clerk.

5. With regard to any future appeals initiated by Appellant, the Court finds Appellant's propensity toward endless litigation “warrants the unusual step of establishing a screening mechanism to forestall future frivolous lawsuits.” Parks v. State, 789 N.E.2d 40, 49 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied.

6. Accordingly, the Court imposes the following conditions upon Appellant:

a. Any Notice of Appeal filed by Appellant must fully comply with the content requirements of Appellate Rule 9(F) and Form #App.R. 9-1. If it does not, then the Clerk is directed to return the Notice of Appeal to Appellant without it being docketed.

b. At the time Appellant tenders a Notice of Appeal, Appellant must either pay the appellate filing fee as required by Appellate Rule 9(E) or comply with Appellate Rule 40 by showing that he has been granted permission by the trial court to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. If Appellant does not pay the appellate filing fee or comply with Appellate Rule 40, then the Clerk is directed to return the Notice of Appeal to Appellant without it being docketed.

c. Any documents/motions tendered by Appellant in a case after the Notice of Appeal has been filed must fully comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. If the tendered document/motion does not fully comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, then the Clerk is directed to return the noncompliant document/motion to Appellant without it being docketed.

7. Because of his continuing abusive interactions with personnel in the Office of the Clerk of this Court, Appellant may only communicate with the Clerk's Office through writing. The Clerk is authorized to direct personnel in the Clerk's Office to not answer phone calls from Appellant. Should a phone call be mistakenly answered, personnel in the Clerk's Office are directed to inform Appellant he can only communicate with the Clerk's Office through writing and end the call.

8. The Court directs that this order should be published.

9. The Clerk is directed to send this order to West/Thompson Reuters, LexisNexis, and all other sources to which decisions/opinions of the Court are normally sent.

10.The Clerk is directed to send this order to the parties, the trial court, and the Tippecanoe Circuit and Superior Courts Clerk.

11.The Tippecanoe Circuit and Superior Courts Clerk is directed to file this order under Cause Number 79D06-2501-CC-275, and, pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 77(D), the Clerk shall place the contents of this order in the Record of Judgments and Orders.