Augustus B. Gaines Jr., Appellant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee. (2026)

Order

[1] In 2017, Appellant was convicted of Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and Level 5 felony possession of a narcotic drug in Cause Number 49D21-1605-F4-17685. Appellant appealed, and the Court affirmed his convictions. Gaines v. State, No. 49A02-1711-CR-2656 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2018), trans. denied. Our Supreme Court denied transfer on February 21, 2019, and the Clerk certified the Court's opinion pursuant to Appellate Rule 65(E) on February 25, 2019.

[2] Appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief in Cause Number 49D21-1912-PC-45970. The petition was granted, and Appellant's convictions were vacated.

[3] Despite this, Appellant filed another petition for post-conviction relief in Cause Number 49D21-2511-PC-33950. The trial court found the petition was an unauthorized successive petition for post-conviction relief and granted the State's motion to dismiss.

[4] Appellant attempted to appeal the ruling in Cause Number 26A-PC-652, but the case was dismissed on March 30, 2026 as an unauthorized successive petition for post-conviction relief.

[5] Although the appeal had been dismissed, Appellant tendered six different motions on May 8, 2026. None of these motions could be filed because Appellant never paid the filing fee or complied with Appellate Rule 40. The Clerk processed the documents and had to issue six Notices of Defect. At the same time, Appellant tendered the same six defective documents in another appeal he was litigating in Cause Number 25A-CR-3268. Appellant never corrected the defective documents.

[6] In light of this, the Court issued an order on June 1, 2026 in Cause Number 26A-PC-652 imposing filing restrictions on Appellant pursuant to Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 264 (Ind. 2014).

[7] After filing restrictions were imposed in Cause Number 26A-PC-652, Appellant began filing documents in this case, which has been dormant since 2019. On August 21, 2026, Appellant tendered a Motion to Relieve Petitioner of Commercial Detention In. T.R. 60 and Motion to Aquisite Jurisdiction Error for Righting of Error. On September 8, Appellant tendered a Motion to Change Venue and a Motion to Compel Order. All of these motions were procedurally improper because, as already noted, this case has long been closed.

[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. 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. Because they have not been filed and are procedurally improper, the Court takes no action on the four documents tendered by Appellant on August 21 and September 8, 2026.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. These conditions apply in this case, any currently pending appeal, any past appeals initiated by Appellant, and any future appeals initiated by Appellant.

5. The Clerk is directed to reject without return for correction all documents tendered by Appellant in this case.

6. Rejected documents should not be docketed by the Clerk.

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

8. The Clerk 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.

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

10.The Marion Circuit and Superior Courts Clerk is directed to file this order under Cause Number 49D21-1605-F4-17685, and, pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 77(D), the Clerk shall place the contents of this order in the Record of Judgments and Orders.