MILLS v. RUSH (2026)

Order

[1] Since 2024, Appellant has initiated at least twenty (20) civil actions in Hamilton County. He has sued a variety of businesses, law firms, and the Hamilton County Jail. He has also sued members of the judiciary including trial judges, the Clerk of this Court, judges on this Court, and this Court in general.

[2] Appellant's numerous actions in the trial court have led to eleven (11) appeals (one filed in 2024, seven in 2025, and three so far in 2026). Eight have been dismissed for procedural reasons with the most common reason being the lack of a final judgment. Including this appeal, Appellant currently has two pending appeals. The Court has issued a decision in only one of Appellant's appeals, and in that case, the Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Appellant's complaint. Mills v. Court of Appeals of Indiana, No. 25A-MI-2345, 2026 WL 253101 (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2026).

[3] In this case, Mills filed a complaint on December 30, 2025 naming the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court and two employees of the Office of Judicial Administration as defendants alleging they obstructed justice. The trial court issued an order on January 8 denying Mills’ request for a fee waiver and dismissing the case. It found Mills had a “long pattern of frivolous and abusive filings” in Hamilton County with “many acts of reprisal and harassment against attorneys and judicial officers.” Trial Court's Jan. 8, 2026 Order at 1. The court found Mills’ pauper status did not “give him the right to file endless litigation for the clear purpose of harassment.” Id. at 2. Accordingly, the court enjoined Mills from requesting a fee waiver in Hamilton County for two years.

[4] Mills filed his Notice of Appeal on January 9. He did not pay the filing fee as required by Appellate Rule 9(E). As a result, on January 15, the Court ordered Mills to pay the filing fee or comply with Appellate Rule 40 within ten days. Mills has now filed a motion requesting permission 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 request 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 should 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 Hamilton Circuit and Superior Courts Clerk.

10. The Hamilton Circuit and Superior Courts Clerk is directed to file this order under Cause Number 29D01-2512-RF-10693, and, pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 77(D), the Clerk shall place the contents of this order in the Record of Judgments and Orders.

Mathias, Bradford, JJ., Crone, Sr.J., concur.