Rebekah A. Atkins, Appellant, v. Lisa Stephenson Holzbog, et al., Appellees. (2023)

Order

[1] The Court notes that since 2018, Appellant has initiated sixteen (16) appeals and has filed fifteen (15) original actions in our Supreme Court. All fifteen (15) of the original actions filed by Appellant have been dismissed. The Court has dismissed twelve (12) of Appellant's appeals. The appeals were dismissed for a variety of reasons. Some were dismissed on procedural grounds and several were dismissed either because there was no adverse judgment or no final judgment to appeal. In many cases, Appellant's Notice of Appeal did not comply with the content requirements of Appellate Rule 9(F).

[2] Including this case, Appellant has initiated four (4) appeals in which the Crawford County Clerk Lisa Holzbog and various staff in the Crawford County Clerk's office were the Appellees. The first of those appeals was under Cause Number 19A-MI-1975, and it was dismissed because Appellant did not file a motion to compel the filing of the Notice of Completion of Clerk's Record.

[3] In Atkins v. Holzbog, No. 20A-MI-2120, 2021 WL 1182323, *3 (Ind. Ct. App. March 30, 2021), trans. denied, the Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Appellant's Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus concluding that Appellant had waived her arguments on appeal by not presenting a cogent argument supported by citations to the record and relevant authorities.

[4] In Atkins v. Crawford County Clerk's Office, 171 N.E.3d 131, 140 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), the Court determined that the trial court had properly denied Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel but erred in denying her request to proceed in forma pauperis and in granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss.

[5] On remand, following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Appellees. Appellant then initiated this appeal. On July 15, 2022, the Court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss. Later, the Court granted Appellees’ Motion for Sanctions on July 20, 2022. The case was remanded to the trial court for the implementation of reasonable restrictions on Appellant's filings in the trial court pursuant to Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259 (Ind. 2014) and for the imposition of financial sanctions due to Appellees’ costs in having to defend themselves in this appeal. The trial court has scheduled a hearing on March 31, 2023 to address the issue of sanctions.

[6] In the meantime, Appellant filed a Petition to Transfer, which was denied by our Supreme Court on December 1, 2022.

[7] Appellees have now filed a Motion for Appellate Sanctions and an Amended Motion for Appellate Sanctions asking the Court to impose filing restrictions on Appellant in the appellate courts of this state pursuant to Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259 (Ind. 2014). Appellant has responded by filing two Motions for Contempt of Court, Sanctions, and Show Cause Hearing Against the Defendants.

[8] 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. Ct. App. 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.

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

1. Appellant's Motions for Contempt of Court, Sanctions, and Show Cause Hearing Against the Defendants are both denied.

2. Appellees’ Motion for Appellate Sanctions and Amended Motion for Appellate Sanctions are both granted.

3. As this Court concluded in Parks v. State, 789 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied, Appellant's propensity toward endless litigation “warrants the unusual step of establishing a screening mechanism to forestall future frivolous lawsuits.” Parks, 789 N.E.2d at 49.

4. 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 that she 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 that she tenders 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.

5. The Court directs that this order should be published.

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

7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send this order to the parties, the trial court, and the Crawford Circuit Court Clerk.

8. The Crawford Circuit Court Clerk is directed to file this order under Cause Number 13C01-2010-MI-27, and, pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 77(D), the Clerk shall place the contents of this order in the Record of Judgments and Orders.

For the Court,

Vaidik, Bradford, JJ., Shepard, Sr.J., concur.