JUSTISE v. MIAMI CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Charles E. Justise, Sr., appeals, pro se, both the summary judgment ¹ and jury verdict in favor of Miami Correctional Facility (“MCF”) and other various officials, both known and unknown, (collectively, “Miami”) on his complaint for damages and declaratory relief. He purports to raise four issues on appeal, but we address only the dispositive issue of whether he has waived his claims for failure to comply with the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure. Finding that he has, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 25, 2022, MCF prisoner Justise filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief against Miami. The complaint raised various claims, including claims of retaliation and property loss. Justise subsequently filed motions for partial summary judgment on his property claims, and Miami filed both a response and a cross-motion for summary judgment on the claim against Department of Correction (“DOC”) employees Scott Kenworthy and Timothy Dice for retaliation and its affirmative defense of qualified immunity for Kenworthy and Dice.

[3] Briefing on summary judgment was completed, and, on October 6, 2023, the trial court entered partial summary judgment in favor of Kenworthy and Dice on the basis of qualified immunity. The court noted the only remaining claims were the property claims against MCF. On February 5, 2024, the court denied Justise's partial summary judgment motion and granted MCF's partial summary judgment motion on Justise's claim for $9.40 in postage costs for legal mail. The court denied both parties’ motions for partial summary judgment on the remaining property claim, and the parties proceeded to a jury trial on that claim.

[4] On November 12, 2024, the jury returned a verdict in favor of MCF on Justise's remaining claims, and the trial court entered judgment on that verdict. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Justise brings this appeal pro se.

It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys. Twin Lakes Reg'l Sewer Dist. v. Teumer, 992 N.E.2d 744, 747 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). This means that 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. Shepherd v. Truex, 819 N.E.2d 457, 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

Lowrance v. State, 64 N.E.3d 935, 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied.

[6] Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(6)(a) requires that an appellant's brief contain a statement of facts which must “be supported by page references to the Record on Appeal or Appendix.” When a party refers to facts without citation to the record in support, “we need not consider those facts.” Reed v. City of Evansville, 956 N.E.2d 684, 688 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. Similarly, Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) requires that “[e]ach contention [ ] be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal.” When an appellant provides no citation to legal authority supporting his contentions, those contentions are waived. E.g., Shields v. Town of Perrysville, 136 N.E.3d 309, 312 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Thus, under our Appellate Rules, “[i]t is not sufficient for the argument section that an appellant simply recites facts and makes conclusory statements without analysis or authoritative support.” Kishpaugh v. Odegard, 17 N.E.3d 363, 373 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). This rule “prevents the court from becoming an advocate when it is forced to search the entire record for evidence in support of [a party's] broad statements.” Lane Alan Schrader Tr. v. Gilbert, 974 N.E.2d 516, 521 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Keller v. State, 549 N.E.2d 372, 373 (Ind. 1990)).

[7] Here, Justise's two and a half pages of facts provide few citations to the record; the majority of the alleged facts are unsupported by citation to anything at all. Therefore, we do not consider those facts. See Reed, 956 N.E.2d 688 n.1. And without those facts, there is no support for Justise's legal claims. In addition, Justise's five and a half pages of argument consist mostly of bald assertions of additional facts without citation to the record and conclusory legal statements without citation to legal authority.

[8] For example, Justise's first assertion is that he is entitled to a new trial. He contends that MCF officials “lied under oath” when they stated that they did not have the names of the officers who conducted a shakedown of Justise's cell and allegedly confiscated his property. Appellant's Br. at 5. He alleges that “it was verified at trial the staff would know the names of staff” and cites to page 136 of the transcript in support. Id. However, that portion of the transcript does not show that MCF would have had a record of the names of the staff who conducted the shakedown. Moreover, even if Justise had provided citations to the record supporting his claim that MCF officials “lied under oath,” he provides no legal authority in support of his apparent belief that such a “lie” would entitle him to a new trial. Appellant's Br. at 5. Similarly, although Justise does provide some citation to legal authority regarding his theory of spoliation of evidence, he fails to provide citation to any part of the record that would support his claim that MCF engaged in spoliation ² or any legal authority supporting his claim that such spoliation would call for a new trial.

[9] Justise's briefing on the second issue—qualified immunity for Kenworthy and Dice—suffers from the same insufficiencies. Justise states multiple new facts regarding the alleged retaliation against him but provides not a single relevant citation to the record in support of those alleged facts. Nor does he provide any relevant legal authority or cogent legal argument regarding qualified immunity. Rather, he merely cites cases related to “protected First Amendment activity” and concludes “[n]either Dice nor Kenworthy would be entitled to qualified immunity.” Id. at 8. Given the lack of cogent analysis, legal authority, and record citations in support of the alleged facts, Justise has waived his claims regarding qualified immunity. App. R. 46(A).

[10] Justise's third argument—that he is entitled to summary judgment on his loss of property claim—is similarly deficient. His few citations to the record do not support the factual claims he makes, he provides no relevant legal authority, and his conclusory statements lack cogent reasoning.

[11] Justise's final contention that he is entitled to declaratory judgment on his claim for $9.40 in postage costs for legal mail also fails to comply with the Appellate Rules. First, the entire claim is dependent upon his unsupported factual allegation that MCF “charged [him] for legal mail when he was completely indigent.” Appellant's Br. at 10. Second, although he cites to a state statute requiring free postage for indigent prisoners’ legal mail, he provides no citation to any evidence in the record that he is “indigent” under any definition of that word. Ind. Code § 11-11-7-2.

Conclusion

[12] Justise has waived his arguments on appeal by failing to cite relevant portions of the record in support of his factual allegations, failing to cite supporting legal authorities, and failing to make cogent arguments, all as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A). Therefore, we affirm the trial court's order.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although Justise's Notice of Appeal identifies only the November 12, 2024, judgment entered on the jury verdict in favor of Miami Correctional Facility as the order being appealed, he also purports to raise arguments challenging the partial summary judgment entered by the trial court on October 6, 2023, in favor of Defendants Kenworthy and Dice, on the issue of qualified immunity and the partial summary judgment entered for Defendant MCF on February 5, 2024, on the issue of the $9.40 charge for postage for legal mail.

2.   Justise cites to page 56 of the transcript as support for his factual claim that “there are at least eight (8) cameras that was [sic] focused on Justise's cell, and all the footage was admitted destroyed.” Appellant's Br. at 6. However, the cited portion of the transcript contains no such support; rather, that page consists of nothing but argument of counsel and comments of the court regarding matters unrelated to cameras or spoliation.

Bailey, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.