Pastor Mario L. Sims, Appellant-Plaintiff v. Richard Eugene Bryant, and the Law Office of Richard Bryant, Appellees-Defendants (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Mario Sims, pro se, filed a complaint for legal malpractice and vicarious liability against Richard Bryant and the Law Office of Richard Bryant (collectively, “Bryant”). The trial court dismissed with prejudice the complaint and denied several motions Sims filed. Sims appeals the denial of his motions. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 1994, Sims was convicted of burglary, rape, and criminal deviate conduct in St. Joseph County. In the years following his convictions, Sims filed numerous ¹ lawsuits seeking to establish that the convictions were the result of a conspiracy against him by public officials. As described by this Court in 2003, Sims has a “penchant for litigation, regardless of the merits of his claims or prior adjudications of competent courts.” Sims v. Scopelitis, 797 N.E.2d 348, 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. To prevent Sims’ abuse of the judicial system and dispose of frivolous litigation as quickly as possible, we imposed certain conditions on his filing of future lawsuits:

With respect to any future lawsuits that arise directly or indirectly from any alleged conspiracy by public officials related to Sims’ arrest, prosecution, conviction or confinement for burglary, rape, and criminal deviate conduct, we impose the following conditions upon Sims: (1) Prior to filing any such lawsuit, Sims shall submit to the trial court a copy of the complaint he wishes to file; (2) Sims shall also file a copy of all of the relevant documents pertaining to the ultimate disposition of each and every previous case instituted by Sims against the same defendant or emanating, directly or indirectly, from any alleged conspiracy by public officials. This includes, but is not limited to, the complaint, any motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment filed by the defendants in those actions, the trial court order announcing disposition of the case, and any opinions issued in the case by any appellate court; (3) Sims shall file a legal brief, complete with competent legal argument and citation to authority, explaining to the court why the new action is not subject to dismissal by application of the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case. If, after reviewing these materials, the trial court determines that the proposed lawsuit is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or is otherwise utterly without merit, the court shall dismiss with prejudice the proposed complaint; (4) Sims is required to verify his new complaint pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 11(B); and (5) Sims is specifically instructed to attach to such complaint a separate copy of this final section of the instant opinion.

Id. (emphasis added). Several years later, after Sims had continued to file lawsuits related to the alleged conspiracy without first complying with the Scopelitis conditions, we clarified the procedure by adding:

As clearly specified in Scopelitis, this screening is intended to be a pre-filing procedure. If, however, a lawsuit is inadvertently filed prior to the screening by the trial court, the review outlined in Scopelitis and clarified here should take place as soon as practicable after filing. In such circumstances, if the trial court determines, upon completing its review, that the lawsuit is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or is otherwise without merit, the court shall dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

Sims v. Buttigieg, 194 N.E.3d 80, 83–84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (emphasis added), trans. denied, cert. denied.

[3] In 2020, Sims filed a lawsuit making additional allegations of official misconduct related to his 1994 convictions.² Among the many defendants named in the lawsuit was Tim Corbett, a South Bend Police Department officer. The defendants moved to dismiss, pointing out Sims’ suit was based on conspiracy-related claims but Sims had not complied with Scopelitis. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. Sims v. Buttigieg, No. 20A-CT-2390, at *4 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2021) (mem.).

[4] Based on Sims’ 2020 lawsuit, Corbett filed a complaint against Sims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, engaging in frivolous litigation, and defamation (among other claims). Sims filed counterclaims and made third-party claims against the same litany of public officials he had already sued repeatedly. The “Statement of Facts” supporting Sims’ counterclaims essentially repeated verbatim the allegations of his 2020 complaint. See Appellee's App. Vol. 2 at 62–71. Corbett moved to dismiss Sims’ counterclaims. It is unclear when Bryant entered an appearance for Sims in the Corbett case, but he appeared for Sims at the motion to dismiss hearing on January 2, 2024.³ He later moved to withdraw, and his motion was granted on January 24, 2024. The trial court granted Corbett's motion to dismiss all but one of Sims’ counterclaims because they were almost identical to the claims in Sims’ dismissed 2020 lawsuit.⁴ Corbett's case against Sims and Sims’ one remaining counterclaim are still pending.

[5] In 2025, Sims filed a complaint alleging professional malpractice by Bryant and vicarious liability of the Law Office based on Bryant's representation of Sims in the Corbett litigation, claiming Bryant's “actions and inactions ․ resulted in a negative judgment.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 17. Bryant moved to dismiss because the case “fits comfortably within the ‘arising directly or indirectly’ from the St. Joseph County conspiracy” language from Scopelitis. Appellee's App. Vol. 2 at 4. Sims opposed the motion to dismiss, asserting Scopelitis did not apply to this lawsuit. He also filed a motion to disqualify the attorney and law firm representing Bryant. In a single order, the trial court dismissed Sims’ case with prejudice and denied Sims’ motion to disqualify. Sims filed a motion to correct error and moved for a change of judge. These motions were also denied. In denying the motion to correct error, the trial court stated:

[T]he Court again reviews the docket for this cause, including all pleadings and other documents filed to date [and] finds that the Complaint ․ is a lawsuit “that arise(s) directly or indirectly from any alleged conspiracy by public officials related to Sims’ arrest, prosecution, conviction or confinement for burglary, rape, and criminal deviate conduct[.]” The Court next finds that [Sims] did not “first, prior to filing any such lawsuit, submit (i.e. not file) to the trial court his verified proposed complaint as required by Scopelitis[.]” Third, the Court analyzes the Complaint and other court filings and determines that, in order to prevail, [Sims] “will have to prove the very conspiracy that the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held Sims has frivolously asserted[.”] Accordingly, the Court finds the Complaint to be frivolous, malicious and without merit.

Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 13–14.

The trial court did not err in dismissing Sims’ complaint, and Sims’ subsequent motions are nullities.

[6] Sims contends the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to disqualify, motion for change of judge, and motion to correct error. But before we may consider the trial court's rulings on those motions, we must first address whether the lawsuit was properly dismissed with prejudice.

[7] “There is no right to engage in abusive litigation[.]” Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 264 (Ind. 2014). The state has a legitimate interest in preserving valuable judicial and administrative resources because “[e]very resource that courts devote to an abusive litigant is a resource denied to other legitimate cases with good-faith litigants.” Id. The conditions Scopelitis imposed on Sims seek to serve that interest.⁵

[8] Sims does not dispute that he did not comply with Scopelitis before filing this lawsuit. He claims there is “no requirement to follow Scopelitis in a legal malpractice suit.” Appellant's Br. at 9–10. But the Scopelitis requirements are not based on the type of litigation but on the basis for the litigation—Scopelitis plainly applies to claims directly or indirectly relating to Sims’ long-standing conspiracy allegations.

[9] The trial court found this case was directly or indirectly related to the alleged conspiracy and dismissed it as “frivolous, malicious and without merit.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 14. We discern no error in the trial court's dismissal with prejudice of Sims’ complaint against Bryant after conducting a post-filing screening. The Corbett litigation arose directly from Sims’ conspiracy allegations. Sims asserted counterclaims that again sought redress for the conspiracy-related claims that have been soundly rejected for over twenty years. The counterclaims were dismissed after Scopelitis review because they, too, arose directly from the alleged conspiracy. And because Sims’ complaint against Bryant is based on Bryant's appearance at the hearing on Corbett's motion to dismiss the counterclaims, the current case ultimately relates back to Sims’ insistence on re-litigating his conspiracy-related claims.

[10] Had Sims properly followed the Scopelitis procedure and submitted his proposed complaint to the trial court for pre-filing screening, this frivolous lawsuit would have been resolved before it started. See Buttigieg, 194 N.E.3d at 83 (explaining “Sims must first, prior to filing any such lawsuit, submit (i.e. not file) to the trial court his verified proposed complaint as required by Scopelitis”) (emphasis added). Sims’ motions in a case that should not have been filed are nullities, and we need not address the merits of his arguments about the rulings on those motions. See Buttigieg, No. 20A-CT-2390 at *4 (holding that because Sims’ lawsuit should never have been filed in the first place, any motions filed and rulings thereon “should be considered nullities” and declining to address Sims’ arguments about his motions for change of venue).

Conclusion

[11] The trial court properly dismissed Sims’ complaint with prejudice and therefore, Sims’ motions are nullities and we do not address them.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   “Numerous” is something of an understatement—by 2003, Sims had prosecuted “at least 47 state court appeals” related to his convictions. Sims v. Bramer, 827 N.E.2d 1187, 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. Since then, Sims has continued to file lawsuits and claims related to the alleged conspiracy. Sims has also filed several conspiracy-related lawsuits in federal court.

2.   To the extent necessary to gain a clear understanding of the issues, and where the information has not otherwise been provided by the parties, we have taken judicial notice of the existence of court records in the cases relevant to this decision. See Ind. Evidence Rule 201(a)(2)(C).

3.   Bryant did not represent Sims when Sims filed his answer and counterclaims in the Corbett case. It appears Bryant may have first represented Sims by filing on his behalf a Notice of Appeal from a trial court order in late 2021. The appeal was dismissed.

4.   Corbett's complaint also made claims against Sims’ attorney who filed the 2020 complaint. The one counterclaim the trial court did not dismiss alleged tortious interference with the attorney-client agreement, a “unique” claim “based on different allegations.” Appellee's App. Vol. 2 at 141.

5.   It is important to note that Scopelitis does not command dismissal if its requirements are not followed. Given Sims’ history of prolific, abusive litigation, the requirements simply seek to ensure that only meritorious lawsuits are actually filed. See Buttigieg, No. 20A-CT-2390 at *3 (noting the Scopelitis order is not a “complete ban; Sims may file claims related to [his] convictions so long as he complies with its requirements” and the trial court finds the claims are meritorious after screening). Of course, Sims’ repeated failure to comply wastes judicial resources anyway, and in Bramer, this court found him in contempt for failing to submit his proposed lawsuit to the screening procedure. 827 N.E.2d at 1189.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Foley, J., and Scheele, J., concur.