Alfred W. Comer, Jr., Appellant-Petitioner v. Jason English, Appellee-Respondent (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Alfred Comer, Jr., an inmate at Westville Correctional Facility, appeals the dismissal of his small claims matter. He argues the trial court erred when it concluded his complaint was frivolous under Indiana's Frivolous Claim Law, Indiana Code section 34-58-1-2. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On Wednesday, June 11, 2025, Comer placed a Fresh Favorites ¹ order at the Westville Correctional Facility. The order cost him $22.89. Based on Fresh Favorites's policies, Comer expected his order to be delivered on June 19, the following Thursday. See Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 16 (“Orders ․ must be submitted before the 2nd Thursday of each month. They will be delivered on the following Thursday.”). Instead of receiving his order on the 19th, he was directed to pick it up on June 25. However, he could not pick up his order then because he was receiving medical treatment elsewhere in the facility. Comer never received his order and was not refunded or otherwise credited for the expense.

[3] On June 25, Comer filed a grievance with the Department of Corrections explaining the situation and claiming he was entitled to a refund. The facility's grievance specialist responded that “[a]ccording to [Fresh Favorites's] no refund policy, since his order was made and he didn't notify [them] that he couldn't ․ get his order, [they] will not be providing a refund.” Id. at 14. Fresh Favorites's policy specifically provides,

If you can't get to the dining hall to receive your order, for any reason, you will not receive a refund.

․

If you are at medical or leave the facility, no refund.

․

It doesn't matter what the reason is, if you are not in the dining hall when we serve [Fresh Favorites], then you will not receive your order, and you will not receive a refund.

Id. at 16.

[4] Comer also filed a tort claim with the Indiana Attorney General's office, which was denied. On September 23, Comer filed a case in small claims court against Fresh Favorites’ Director, Jason English. He alleged English failed to deliver his order on time and wouldn't issue a refund. Comer sought $300 in damages: $22.89 for the Fresh Favorites order and the rest for court costs and postage. On January 7, 2026, the trial court dismissed Comer's claim as frivolous under the Frivolous Claim Law. Comer now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Comer challenges the dismissal of his claim against English.² Though Comer proceeds in this appeal pro se, we hold him “ ‘to the same standards as a trained attorney’ and ‘afford[ ] [him] no inherent leniency simply by virtue of being self-represented.’ ” Wilcox v. Gingrinch, 274 N.E.3d 1269, 1272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2026) (quoting Auto Fin. Corp. v. Liu, 250 N.E.3d 406, 410 (Ind. 2025)).

[6] The Frivolous Claim Law requires trial courts to screen an offender's complaint to “determine if the claim may proceed.” Reed v. White, 103 N.E.3d 657, 659 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2 (2004)). When an offender's complaint is dismissed pursuant to the Frivolous Claim Law, our review is de novo. Taylor v. Antisdel, 185 N.E.3d 867, 872 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. “[W]e will affirm on any basis supported by the record.” Hill v. Chesterfield, 227 N.E.3d 949, 951 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). Under the Frivolous Claim Law,

(a) ․ A claim may not proceed if the court determines that the claim:

(1) is frivolous;

․

(b) A claim is frivolous under subsection (a)(1) if the claim;

(1) is made primarily to harass a person; or

(2) lacks an arguable basis either in:

(A) law; or

(B) fact.

I.C. § 34-58-1-2.

[7] A review of the record reveals Comer's claim lacked an arguable basis in fact. While he complains he should be afforded some kind of refund or credit for his Fresh Favorites order, the policy clearly states, “if you are not in the dining hall when [the order is served], ․ you will not receive your order, and you will not receive a refund.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 16. The policy specifically denotes that a medical appointment is no exception. Comer was admittedly receiving medical attention at the time his Fresh Favorites order was available. He was therefore not entitled to a refund, and his claim was rightfully dismissed as frivolous under the statute.³

Conclusion

[8] Finding no error, we affirm.

[9] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Fresh Favorites is a program offered by Aramark in conjunction with correctional facilities that allows inmates to purchase certain meal options.

2.   To the extent Comer argues the trial court violated his due process rights, he fails to develop a cogent argument with citations to legal authority and has waived the issue for appellate consideration. See Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 984 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (noting that issues may be waived for “failure to present cogent argument on appeal”), reh'g denied.

3.   Comer challenges other bases for the dismissal of his claim. But because we may affirm on any basis supported by the record and our determination on the issue of frivolousness is dispositive, we need not address his remaining arguments.

DeBoer, Judge.

Foley, J., and Felix, J., concur.