Charles Justise Sr., Appellant-Plaintiff v. Miami Correctional Facility, Appellee-Defendant (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Charles Justise Sr., pro se, appeals the trial court's September 25, 2024, final order dismissing his remaining claims against Miami Correctional Facility (“MCF”) after the trial court granted partial summary judgment to MCF on Justise's claims seeking return of his Xbox 360 gaming system (“Xbox”). Justise presents several issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as:

1. Whether the trial court erred when it granted partial summary judgment in favor of MCF on Justise's Xbox-related claims; and

2. Whether the trial court erred when it dismissed all remaining claims in Justise's amended complaint based on a settlement agreement (“the Settlement Agreement”) executed by the parties.

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Justise is an offender in the custody of the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”). On April 17, 2019, Justise was transferred to MCF from Indiana State Prison, and he brought with him personal property including an Xbox 360 gaming console and accessories. Shortly after he arrived at MCF, prison staff discovered the Xbox and accessories, determined Justise's possession thereof violated MCF policy, and confiscated the items.

[3] Justice filed his amended final complaint ¹ on April 23, 2021, in which he sought $1,544.57 in damages; return of the Xbox and accessories; transfer back to the Indiana State Prison; and other forms of relief not relevant here. He alleged that when he arrived at MCF, Warden William Hyatte gave him permission to possess the Xbox and accessories. However, Deputy Warden Troy Cambe allegedly informed Warden Hyatte that the Xbox and accessories contained pornography. Subsequently, MCF confiscated the Xbox and accessories as well as unrelated personal items.

[4] On April 17, 2023, Justise filed his first motion for partial summary judgment. Justise filed a second motion for partial summary judgment on May 2, 2023. On June 2, 2023, MCF filed its own motion for summary judgment and a response to Justise's motions.

[5] The trial court held a hearing on August 7, 2023, regarding all pending summary judgment motions. On August 17, 2023, the trial court issued its order granting summary judgment in favor of MCF on Justise's claims seeking return of the Xbox and accessories. However, the trial court allowed Justise's claims for monetary compensation for the Xbox and other personal property to proceed.

[6] On August 9, 2024, the parties entered into the Settlement Agreement. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, MCF was to pay Justise $750 and transfer him to Indiana State Prison in exchange for dismissal of all claims except his “specific claim regarding an Xbox and Xbox accessories in the amended final complaint[,]” which the trial court indicated he was entitled to appeal. (Appellee's App. Vol. II at 55.) MCF executed the terms of the settlement agreement by transferring Justise to Indiana State Prison and paying him $750. On September 23, 2024, MCF filed a notice of execution of settlement and motion to dismiss. On September 25, 2024, the trial court granted MCF's motion to dismiss in an order that stated: “The Court previously granted summary judgment to [MCF] as to [Justise's] Xbox claims. All remaining pending claims of [Justise] (and this case itself) are now DISMISSED with prejudice.” (Id. at 58) (emphasis in original).

Discussion and Decision

[7] We note initially that Justise appears pro se in this appeal. Pro se litigants are not given special consideration by virtue of their pro se status and are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys. Kelley v. State, 234 N.E.3d 926, 934 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans. denied. Pro se litigants are bound to follow the established rules of procedure and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so. Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

1. Grant of Partial Summary Judgment

[8] When reviewing summary judgment, “we stand in the shoes of the trial court.” Supervised Estate of Kent, 99 N.E.3d 634, 637 (Ind. 2018). Summary judgment is proper “if the designated evidentiary matter shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). The moving party bears the initial burden of making a prima facie showing, which then shifts the burden to the non-moving party to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. Burton v. Benner, 140 N.E.3d 848, 851 (Ind. 2020).

[9] “A fact is ‘material’ if its resolution would affect the outcome of the case, and an issue is ‘genuine’ if a trier of fact is required to resolve the parties’ differing accounts of the truth or if the undisputed material facts support conflicting reasonable inferences.” Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756, 761 (Ind. 2009) (quoting Gaboury v. Ireland Road Grace Brethren, Inc., 446 N.E.2d 1310, 1313 (Ind. 1983)). We resolve doubts about facts or inferences in favor of the non-moving party and review questions of law de novo. Burton, 140 N.E.3d at 851. Summary judgment is presumed valid, and the losing party bears the burden of demonstrating error. FLM, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 973 N.E.2d 1167, 1173 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied.

[10] Justise argues the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of MCF because there were several issues of disputed fact including whether MCF could lawfully confiscate his Xbox. Specifically, Justise asserts that Warden Hyatte gave him permission to possess the Xbox and that the alleged existence of pornography was the only reason his Xbox was confiscated. However, the designated evidence establishes that the Xbox and accessories were prohibited property under MCF policy. Under MCF policy 02-01-101, prohibited property includes any item that “is not specifically permitted by department administrative procedures or by the superintendent/designee.” (Appellee's App. Vol. II at 17.) The evidence shows that gaming systems like Xbox consoles were not specifically permitted at MCF, and Warden Hyatte determined that the Xbox was prohibited property under this policy. Even accepting as true Justise's assertion that Warden Hyatte initially gave him permission to possess the Xbox and related accessories, the MCF Policy 02-01-101 provides that the policy supersedes “all previous facility issued memos, directives, or postings.” (Id. at 14.)

[11] The trial court correctly found no genuine issue of material fact regarding MCF's authority to confiscate prohibited property under its established policies. The designated evidence conclusively establishes that the Xbox was prohibited property not permitted at the facility, providing lawful grounds for its confiscation. Justise's arguments do not create any genuine dispute regarding these material facts, and thus MCF was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Xbox-related claims. See, e.g., Donovan v. Hoosier Park, LLC, 84 N.E.3d 1198, 1210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (summary judgment proper when there were no genuine issues of material fact).

2. Grant of Motion to Dismiss

[12] Justise argues the trial court erred when it dismissed three claims from his amended complaint as part of its September 25, 2024, order granting the State's motion to dismiss. As part of his amended complaint, Justise requested: (1) enforcement of Warden Hyatte's alleged settlement offer; (2) a finding that the Deputy Attorney General was in contempt for violating Professional Conduct Rules; and (3) declaratory judgment that he had a right to possess pornographic material. Our standard of review concerning a motion to dismiss is well-settled:

This court applies a de novo standard of review to a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss. That is, we owe no deference to the trial court's decision as the grant or denial of a motion to dismiss turns only on the legal sufficiency of the complaint and does not require determinations of fact. We will accept as true the facts as alleged in the complaint and will not only consider the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but also draw every reasonable inference in favor of the nonmoving party.

Lake Cnty. v. Klisurich, 182 N.E.3d 877, 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (internal citations omitted).

[13] The trial court dismissed all claims in Justise's amended complaint except the Xbox-related claims. In the Settlement Agreement, Justise agreed to dismiss these same claims. Indiana strongly favors settlement agreements and binds parties to their terms. Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448, 453 (Ind. 2003). Because the trial court dismissed only the claims Justise agreed to dismiss, we find no error.

Conclusion

[14] The trial court did not err when it granted partial summary judgment to MCF on Justise's claims for return of his Xbox and accessories. It also did not err when it granted the State's motion to dismiss the remaining claims. We accordingly affirm the trial court.

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Justise filed his initial complaint on August 13, 2019.

May, Judge.

Judges Weissmann and Scheele concur. Weissmann, J., and Scheele, J., concur.