HOLLAND v. STATE (2026)

Order

[1] Appellant was suspended from the practice of law in 2009 and has never been reinstated. In re Holland, 911 N.E.2d 574 (Ind. 2009). After his suspension, Appellant has become a prolific and abusive litigant. He has initiated over twenty (20) actions in the trial courts of this state and has filed thirty (30) appeals in this Court. Nineteen (19) of those appeals have been dismissed, usually for procedural deficiencies. The Court has issued opinions in ten (10) of his appeals. In seven of those cases, the Court rejected Holland's arguments and affirmed the trial court. In one opinion the Court dismissed without prejudice. In another, the Court affirmed and remanded. And in a third, the Court affirmed, reversed, and remanded. Thus, Appellant has been unsuccessful in nearly all of his appeals.

[2] In this case, Appellant received a traffic citation in 2020. He responded by filing a counterclaim alleging various state and local officials committed racketeering. The trial court dismissed the counterclaim in 2023 finding it was frivolous, without merit, and that it was filed with the intent to harass, waste the time of the parties, and delay justice.

[3] The case lingered until October of 2025 when the State filed a Motion to Dismiss noting it was unable to meet its burden of proof due to the passage of time. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. After filing a motion to correct error, Appellant initiated this appeal on December 20, 2025.

[4] Appellant has now filed a Verified Motion to the Court of Appeals to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis.

[5] 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. 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.

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

1.  Appellant's Verified Motion to the Court of Appeals to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis is denied.

2.  Within ten (10) days of the date of this order, Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee to the Clerk of the Court as required by Appellate Rule 9(E).

3.  Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this appeal.

4.  Pursuant to Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259 (Ind. 2014), after consideration of Appellant's litigation history, the Court concludes filing restrictions should be imposed on Appellant.

5.  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 Appellant 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.

d. Appellant must include a copy of this order with all documents, motions, and Notices of Appeal tendered with the Clerk of this Court. If Appellant does not do so, then the Clerk is directed to return the document, motion, or Notice of Appeal to Appellant without it being docketed.

6.  These conditions apply in this case, any past appeals initiated by Appellant, and any future appeals initiated by Appellant.

7.  The Court directs that this order be published.

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

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

10. The Lake Circuit and Superior Courts Clerk is directed to file this order under Cause Number 45D12-2002-IF-3350, and, pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 77(D), the Clerk shall place the contents of this order in the Record of Judgments and Orders.

Bradford, Weissmann, JJ., Najam, Sr.J., concur.